SO, if the project manager is an architect, yes he is more advanced than the coder.
Notice that architects, unlike managers, do have to spend the initial part of their careers as "coders" to acquire the necessary qualifications. Hence, if the most coding jobs are outsourced there'll be no labour pool to recruit architects from locally. In this light it seems that the article really implies that project management is "more advanced".
However I (working at an outsourcing company in Eastern Europe) do think that the lower-rank software project management jobs will get outsourced as well. Among the projects we do, virtually all team/project management is done in place: it is cheaper and makes more sense technically. And while management work is more stressful and often takes some guts, it isn't nearly as hard and advanced as MBA's would like to think.
You can blame the Nazis for a lot of things, but the world-wide economic collapse after the 1929 stock market crash was not their fault.
Please read the post before you reply. Where did I say anything about stock market, or 1920's for that matter?
In late 30's, Nazi militarty expendentures were way out of proportion creating huge internal debt, and it was recognized by the reichsbank manager, who warned Hitler on this issue. By 1939, it began to show up for an average Fritz, in form of controlled distribution of some goods.
They should use this technology to transcribe legalese into plain English and back. Like, you feed it with "Due to unanticipated circumstances as listed under the terms of the clause 17(a), we may be unable to comply with your request within this and successive fiscal year(s)", and it spits out "bugger off".
Of course, millions of lawyers worldwide would lose their jobs, but I, being bitten by them, just take it as an added benefit.
But misunderstood even more, just like a lot of the Bible.
Well, let's agree that the passage is foggy enough to be misunderstood if no extensive comments are provided. It is very hard to pin down a simple explanation for it which can be understood easily enough by an average attendee (you probably noticed that when you wrote your reply). So preachers tend to avoid it.
Besides, that line was too often misattributed to Lenin (who once said that phrase, but clearly wasn't its originator). That doesn't helps quoting, too.
There is a certain level of difference between saying "Jesus was not worth listening" and "Everything that is good and holy must go".
OK, so if I say "I don't see enough evidence supporting creationism" or "I find God's methods of problem-solving as described in the Old Testament to be higly questionable", which category I fall to?
What is clear however is that they seem to be bringing us a sort of fusion McCarthyism, part Lenin (originator of the line 'whoever is not for us is against us')..
The phrase was coined by Jesus Christ.
Yes, I was shocked too when I first encountered it in New Testament. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30.
You wouldn't find this particular phrase quoted much, though.
Okay, that bomb is great for taking down semiconductor gadgets. The question is, whose military (except the United States and its allies) is vulnerable to that?
Old Soviet military designs, which are the foundation of e.g. Russian, Chinese and North Korean armies don't use sophisticated semiconductor circuitry that extensively, and when used, these parts are heavily shielded.
On the other side of spectrum there are irregular combatants such as Taliban formations and Iraqi guerrilas, whose most advanced gadgets are probaly electronic watches they wear.
In Russian the 'o' becomes more like an 'a', so it is Rabat.
No, phonetically it's somewhere in between 'robot' and 'robat'. This is because Robot is an adopted word (it wasn't formed from 'rabota', the Russian for 'work').
..I was trying to dispel was the bogus notion that neutron bombs were somehow "[more] inhumane [than other nuclear weapons]" because they were built to "kill the people but leave the buildings standing"
Oh, I see.
In fact, neutron bombs are "inhumane" (somewhat bogus notion for any kind of weapon), but certainly not because they leave infrastructure mostly intact. It's just that dying from severe radiation sickness is a long and very painful process.
Considering the main source of the FUD about the "evil" neutron bomb was "peace" groups that spent most of the 70s pressing for unilateral Western disarmament
I doubt that peace protesters have influenced the process of neutron bombs rejection to any noticeable extent. History shows that peace protests ususally don't work. IMO it was a rational decision: Joint Chiefs of Staffs ditched them becasue they found no realistic scenario when such a weapon would give an advantage.
On an unrelated note, I don't think that mass armored invasion was the goal of USSR. Since Stalin era, Soviet Union has pretty much lost its expansionist momentum, and by the 1970s, its government was comprised from old farts mostly happy with status quo. And even during late 40s, when USSR had overwhelming military advantage in Europe and US had too few nukes and no missile delivery, there was no attempt at that.
(It's not that I think it'll change your mind on the issue, but maybe the opinion from the other side of fence is interesting for you:)
But enhanced radiation weapons were actually one of the best options available to commanders of either side during the Cold War. It's a shame that the FUD surrounding them went so out of hand.
The "FUD" was that USSR made it clear that any use of any type of nuclear weapon on the battlefield will ensure prompt and massive nuclear counterstrike (and it clearly makes sense from game-theoretic point of view). So no, neutron munitions were not any better response than 'conventional' nukes.
Because the full common lisp spec is huge (although manageable compared to C++ or java), if you want a full implementation, you'd better go for a commercial implementation (although sbcl is pretty nice).
I'd say SBCL and CMUCL are fairly complete implementations in terms of ANSI compliance.
Commerical implementations have their advantages, of course: variety of extensions, support, quality documentation, fancy IDEs are the most notable.
X10, the wireless camera company that 'only last year billed itself as the world's largest online advertiser', have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
That must be their new business plan:
1. Obtain protection, and change the name to X11 to 'show aprreciation' of Chapter 11 2. Sue X Consortium for trademark violation 3. Profit!
Sounds far-fetched? Well, SCO does even more fascinating stunts!
OK, I have to admit that I was unaware about the constraint on vector layout imposed by STL. My main exposure to C++ was with MFC, where the favored CArray's operator [] was documented to copy.
Also, the very article you refer to points out that it's still impossible to pass std::string as a mutable buffer, and that a proxy storage must be used. This is hardly obvious, convenient or effective, so no wonder that it remains an esoteric hack.
i almost belived i was wrong and my C++ programs are buggy shit due to that
Sorry. I hope you understand that I wasn't trying to 'trick' you into something.
not true:) vector is just a continous chunk of memory and you can safely get the pointer to the first element - it's well documented
Wrong.
Vector can be an arbitrary structure containing more than just the memory chunk. Hence, most vector classes have conversion methods to obtain a C-style object. When they do, the objects they return are usually immutable ('const') and are a copy of actual container data (witness STL).
Besides, a vector instance don't have to occupy a contiguous memory area: consider growable vectors.
Slashdot Mirror
Be sure to mention the dollar devaluation during the Bush rule. It is now about 40% cheaper on the currency markets than two years before.
SO, if the project manager is an architect, yes he is more advanced than the coder.
Notice that architects, unlike managers, do have to spend the initial part of their careers as "coders" to acquire the necessary qualifications. Hence, if the most coding jobs are outsourced there'll be no labour pool to recruit architects from locally. In this light it seems that the article really implies that project management is "more advanced".
However I (working at an outsourcing company in Eastern Europe) do think that the lower-rank software project management jobs will get outsourced as well. Among the projects we do, virtually all team/project management is done in place: it is cheaper and makes more sense technically. And while management work is more stressful and often takes some guts, it isn't nearly as hard and advanced as MBA's would like to think.
That's a serious non sequitor. In my 12 years of "free" public education, I never took a class that taught anything about TCP/IP.
It taught you at least to read, write and some math, which is a prerequisite for learning any technology, but you seem to be taking it for granted.
He also forgot the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act and Geneve Conventions.
You can blame the Nazis for a lot of things, but the world-wide economic collapse after the 1929 stock market crash was not their fault.
Please read the post before you reply. Where did I say anything about stock market, or 1920's for that matter?
In late 30's, Nazi militarty expendentures were way out of proportion creating huge internal debt, and it was recognized by the reichsbank manager, who warned Hitler on this issue. By 1939, it began to show up for an average Fritz, in form of controlled distribution of some goods.
Did the Nazis overspend this much?
They did, mostly on military. Actually, in the late 1930's, the tolal war was the only option for them to avoid immediate economic collapse.
They should use this technology to transcribe legalese into plain English and back. Like, you feed it with "Due to unanticipated circumstances as listed under the terms of the clause 17(a), we may be unable to comply with your request within this and successive fiscal year(s)", and it spits out "bugger off".
Of course, millions of lawyers worldwide would lose their jobs, but I, being bitten by them, just take it as an added benefit.
But misunderstood even more, just like a lot of the Bible.
Well, let's agree that the passage is foggy enough to be misunderstood if no extensive comments are provided. It is very hard to pin down a simple explanation for it which can be understood easily enough by an average attendee (you probably noticed that when you wrote your reply). So preachers tend to avoid it.
Besides, that line was too often misattributed to Lenin (who once said that phrase, but clearly wasn't its originator). That doesn't helps quoting, too.
There is a certain level of difference between saying "Jesus was not worth listening" and "Everything that is good and holy must go".
OK, so if I say "I don't see enough evidence supporting creationism" or "I find God's methods of problem-solving as described in the Old Testament to be higly questionable", which category I fall to?
What is clear however is that they seem to be bringing us a sort of fusion McCarthyism, part Lenin (originator of the line 'whoever is not for us is against us')..
The phrase was coined by Jesus Christ.
Yes, I was shocked too when I first encountered it in New Testament. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30.
You wouldn't find this particular phrase quoted much, though.
Okay, that bomb is great for taking down semiconductor gadgets. The question is, whose military (except the United States and its allies) is vulnerable to that?
Old Soviet military designs, which are the foundation of e.g. Russian, Chinese and North Korean armies don't use sophisticated semiconductor circuitry that extensively, and when used, these parts are heavily shielded.
On the other side of spectrum there are irregular combatants such as Taliban formations and Iraqi guerrilas, whose most advanced gadgets are probaly electronic watches they wear.
That's right. HP has invested 2.5 billion in R&D of that "Adaptive Enterprise", and all they came up with is a buzzword-spewing VP.
... 'cause I did, and now suffer from severe buzzword poisoning.
How 'bout a cable TV in my car? And while we are at it, I want pizza delivery in there too.
In Russian the 'o' becomes more like an 'a', so it is Rabat.
No, phonetically it's somewhere in between 'robot' and 'robat'. This is because Robot is an adopted word (it wasn't formed from 'rabota', the Russian for 'work').
..I was trying to dispel was the bogus notion that neutron bombs were somehow "[more] inhumane [than other nuclear weapons]" because they were built to "kill the people but leave the buildings standing"
:)
Oh, I see.
In fact, neutron bombs are "inhumane" (somewhat bogus notion for any kind of weapon), but certainly not because they leave infrastructure mostly intact. It's just that dying from severe radiation sickness is a long and very painful process.
Considering the main source of the FUD about the "evil" neutron bomb was "peace" groups that spent most of the 70s pressing for unilateral Western disarmament
I doubt that peace protesters have influenced the process of neutron bombs rejection to any noticeable extent. History shows that peace protests ususally don't work. IMO it was a rational decision: Joint Chiefs of Staffs ditched them becasue they found no realistic scenario when such a weapon would give an advantage.
On an unrelated note, I don't think that mass armored invasion was the goal of USSR. Since Stalin era, Soviet Union has pretty much lost its expansionist momentum, and by the 1970s, its government was comprised from old farts mostly happy with status quo. And even during late 40s, when USSR had overwhelming military advantage in Europe and US had too few nukes and no missile delivery, there was no attempt at that.
(It's not that I think it'll change your mind on the issue, but maybe the opinion from the other side of fence is interesting for you
But enhanced radiation weapons were actually one of the best options available to commanders of either side during the Cold War. It's a shame that the FUD surrounding them went so out of hand.
The "FUD" was that USSR made it clear that any use of any type of nuclear weapon on the battlefield will ensure prompt and massive nuclear counterstrike (and it clearly makes sense from game-theoretic point of view). So no, neutron munitions were not any better response than 'conventional' nukes.
Do they want them dead, or alive?
Contrast for example Galileo, one of the only people doing astrological work at the time.
He was one of the few doing astronomy. In contrast, the astrology crap was as popular back then as it is now.
Linux wins in the licensing part, but Windows wins out in the cost of use.
Given the catastrophic worm/virus outbreaks every second week, I don't see how Windows can win at that.
So, the USA not just destroys Iraqi infrastructure to stone age, they now want to flood the ruins with yeast-infected cockroaches?
No limits to human cruelty..
Because the full common lisp spec is huge (although manageable compared to C++ or java), if you want a full implementation, you'd better go for a commercial implementation (although sbcl is pretty nice).
I'd say SBCL and CMUCL are fairly complete implementations in terms of ANSI compliance.
Commerical implementations have their advantages, of course: variety of extensions, support, quality documentation, fancy IDEs are the most notable.
X10, the wireless camera company that 'only last year billed itself as the world's largest online advertiser', have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
That must be their new business plan:
1. Obtain protection, and change the name to X11 to 'show aprreciation' of Chapter 11
2. Sue X Consortium for trademark violation
3. Profit!
Sounds far-fetched? Well, SCO does even more fascinating stunts!
OK, I have to admit that I was unaware about the constraint on vector layout imposed by STL. My main exposure to C++ was with MFC, where the favored CArray's operator [] was documented to copy.
Also, the very article you refer to points out that it's still impossible to pass std::string as a mutable buffer, and that a proxy storage must be used. This is hardly obvious, convenient or effective, so no wonder that it remains an esoteric hack.
i almost belived i was wrong and my C++ programs are buggy shit due to that
Sorry. I hope you understand that I wasn't trying to 'trick' you into something.
The technology is yet to emerge, but the lawyers already preparing to sue.
not true :) vector is just a continous chunk of memory and you can safely get the pointer to the first element - it's well documented
Wrong.
Vector can be an arbitrary structure containing more than just the memory chunk. Hence, most vector classes have conversion methods to obtain a C-style object. When they do, the objects they return are usually immutable ('const') and are a copy of actual container data (witness STL).
Besides, a vector instance don't have to occupy a contiguous memory area: consider growable vectors.