To give a not-yet-litigated example of what I think would be the 3d analogy: A 3d model exactly capturing the surface of the Washington Monument is not copyrightable, because it's mere facts. However, particular photographs or films of the Washington Monument are copyrightable, as they have creative presentation. However (again), someone who collected a bunch of photographs or films of it and extracted a 3d model of the Washington Monument from them, would not be violating the copyright on the photographs or films, because they were merely copying the facts (the 3d spatial position of the stones).
That's an interesting question - would the result be a derivative work and hence subject to the original's copyright? Each photo provides the photographer's view and distorts the actual relationship by the very act of capturing in 2d a 3d object.
I'm not saying that should be the case; but it could be.
Radar didn't exist during WWI, so U-Boats cruised on the surface with lookouts who could eyeball ships or ship smoke at 10 miles, maybe 20 on a good day.
Actaully, WWII boats also cruise on the surface looking for targets; once they found one they would maneuver to intercept and make a submerged attack run. It wasn't until nuclear power submarines came into existence that the submarine was transformed from a surface vessel that attacked submerged to a true submarine. Adm Flukey, amongst others, began cruising with the periscope fully extended to be able to see further over the horizon.
Yes, I realize the snorkel enabled longer under water operations, and that there are other propulsion systems that enable sustained underwater operations; but nuke boats were the technology that really changed submarine warfare.
After extinguishing the fire, douse the device with water or other non-alcoholic liquids to cool the device and prevent additional battery cells from reaching thermal runaway.
... Ok, so the battery is on fire and they want you to douse it with water. A LITHIUM battery... Cripes, I'm thinking these guys don't know what they are talking about. By the way, here's the doc I deal with at work
Hm.. This page has some interesting things on it. [findarticles.com]
*Water may be used to extinguish packaging fires if batteries have not ruptured; water is not an effective extinguishing agent for a battery fire.
* For small fires involving the battery [extinguishing] media such as Lith-X or copper powder may be used, but should be applied with a long handled tool. Do not use CO2 or Halon directly on a battery fire as the exposed surface of the contained lithium may react with these materials.
Interesting stuff. I'm glad to see NAVSEA requires no venting for sub batteries; I wonder what they use on fires? Purple K was the old standby; made a hell of a mess though. A fire on a boat would be as dangerous as on a plane.
What's interesting is the divergent recommendations - on says Halon is OK; the other not. The FAA recommends dousing the battery in water to cool it after the fire is out. Halon was always the magic fire stopper since it interfered with the reaction with out reacting with the flammables; maybe that's not the case with Li-Ion cells? I don't know but am genuinely curious; especially as a real frequent flier.
Interesting. Lithium non-rechargeable sound like the ones I see in the grocery stores that are made as alkaline substitutes. The batteries I work with are Lithium-Ion rechargeable. I'd like to know how they expect to put out the rechargeable ones. So far as I know, they can't be put out. I would really like to know what they think could be used to extinguish them.
According to what I could find they recommend Halon extinguishers are effective, followed by cooling of the battery.
Not sure about alkaline and NiMHs, but the cabin crew is not going to be able to put out a lithium battery that's on fire. They self oxidize. And what would you think they could do? Pour water over it?
From TSA:
Primary lithium batteries cannot be extinguished with firefighting agents normally carried on aircraft, whereas lithium-ion batteries are easily extinguished by most common extinguishing agents, including those carried on board commercial aircraft.
Primary lithium cells are non-rechargeable cells (what devices use them?); most cells carried on board would be lithium ion. Given that a fire from one could be extinguished it seems that since it would be more easily discovered early in the cabin vs in cargo a cargo ban seems reasonable. I fly a lot and can carry all my battery needs in carry on luggage; in fact I never check luggage unless absolutely necessary.
As for cargo flights, where significant amounts of batteries would be carried, figuring out how to safely do it seems reasonable. Given the lack of problems so far it would seem that significant changes would not be needed; but one can never be sure of what a change in regulation will cause. Perhaps fire suppression systems in containers carrying batteries? Then again, that will take space away from goods and result in higher per item transportation costs.
Yeah, I haven't seen anybody point it out yet, but my Apple II+ came with *schematics*. Jobs and Wozniak had been at HP, and HP instrumentation of the period (and for quite a long time afterward) had a very standard manual format. Part of that was complete schematics of the instrument. It rubbed off in the early days, particularly since the steves were also part of the bay area homebrew computer culture.
Not only that; but you could actually call Apple (pardon the pun) and speak to someone who could answer questions about the schematics. I really don't expect that from today's Apple; but illustrates the difference from the Woz and Jobs era and today.
But Mac OS X comes with development tools right on the install CD. How expensive (or difficult, back before bit torrent) it was to get a development environment up and running on Windows was what drove me to Linux and I'm pleased that Apple make it so easy to get programming tools on your Mac.
I think the article author was making a different point than the cost / availability of developer tools:
Apple, way back when, made it easy to get into the inner workings of its systems. They didn't try to prevent people from finding ways to do things, indeed Beagle Bros. built an entire company around that. 1984 was the epitome of what Apple was about.
Now, Apple appears to be more ideologically aligned with the "Big Brother" than the hammer thrower. While it's not quite gotten to the "Information Purification Directives" level yet; Apple seems to be much more inclinned to ensuring things are done there way and controlling how their products can be used tahn creating really cool stuff and watching what others do with it, as they were in the Apple ][ era.
While Job's focus and control has been critical to their success as a company; the down side is a very tight controlled ecosystem. A very successful one, and probably the right way to go; but still controlled.
I'm just saying I don't find the anti-wind arguments convincing. "It's ugly" is just opinion, and "it kills birds" is factually wrong, at least in the sense that the statement is supposed to imply an amount of bird death that is worth mentioning or caring about.
Bats on the other hand...
I'm not either, we're probably pretty close, based on the posts, in our energy viewpoint. My comment on bird kills was the effect on, in the US, protected species such as Golden Eagles (80 kills per year at Altoma Pass); and that any source of energy has an impact on the environment that must be considered.
Too often, proponents of any energy source want to minimize any negative effects while trumpeting those of other energy sources. That prevents reasoned and open debate to designed to come up with a workable compromise solution.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes
bird strikes, is that ALL you can come up with ??? a well placed turbine has only a few hits per year (a lot less than a mile of highway).
ugly? well, let's tear down 99% of all buildings then.
We can add to the list noise, space requirements,variability of power, maintenance and access needs, etc. No source of power is ideal; the key is getting the right mix.
If you want to use automotive deaths as the barometer for technological safety, virtually any technology, especially for power generation, now in use is safer.
The cooling tower exhaust plume is not nuclear related
The point was eye-sore, not nuclear-waste, related.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.
I think wind farms are beautiful compared to the vast majority of man-made structures, and as a bird lover, I am quite confident that bird deaths are negligible, and the issues that did exist are in the past.
Well, a 1000MW nuke would need about 500 2MW wind turbines over about 200 acres of land - I'd not consider that a very beautiful item either.Personally, I consider the turbines I've seen mounted on hilltops eyesores that ruin the view; but that's my opinion.
That's not even considering the variability in wind output - and extra capacity needed to ensure you have enough power to reliably meet demand.
My point is a mix of energy sources are needed to generate the reliable energy we depend on as economies.
The cooling tower exhaust plume is not nuclear related - it simply cools the turbine exhaust in the condenser - something any steam plant needs. Cooling towers exist at all types of power plants where no flowing source of water (generally river or lake) exists that can be used for cooling. The towers became a symbol because they look sinister; another example of what happens to an uniformed public.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.
The real issue is how do we produce energy to run a modern economy? There is no one solution.
On that same note, let something happen to one of my loved ones while you stand by and watch and you better prey to whatever god you worship that I don't find out. I have no problem with revenge against useless fucks too lazy to do anything to help others. No, I don't expect an unarmed person to go after some guy with a knife or gun, but I do expect an appropriate response such as calling for help or calling a doctor. Not everybody is a hero, but everyone SHOULD be a responsible citizen.
What would be ironic someone intervened to prevent you from carrying out your revenge; acting as a responsible citizen.
This is a really stupid law - so the police decide to charge someone they think is a witness. If they're smart, they immediately lawyer up. So now teh police need to investigate a misdemeanor; go to court, and probably not get the information they want. Meanwhile, they've wasted resources that could go to solving real crimes. A judge whose trying to run a rocket docket would probably wonder why a DA is wasting time on such a case.
Yes, I also think people should be responsible and act to help others, but criminalizing the failure to act is not the solution.
You know the knobs driving around your city right now with one hand on the wheel and a cellphone in the other? Imagine them in the air...
Yes, and I figure it would take a few months or so for natural selection to work its course. You'd have to seek shelter during that period; but afterward - no cellphone network congestion or traffic jams.
Seriously though, my college aged daughter says the PC we sent off to school with is not good enough. She _needs_ an Mac. When asked why she can't say specifically why a Mac would be a better choice other than "everyone" has one. It's the way the product has been marketed - as a tool for the elite or more discriminating user. Translation, status symbol.
Well, one advantage to the Mac I've found is things simply "just work" much more often than on a PC. I use a MacBook at work; paid for it myself even though I also have a Dell. With Office I have no compatibility issues; and the Mac has been much easier to use on the road than the Dell. For example:
At one of our partners, I am the only person from my company that can print on their network. My Mac found their Bonjour printer and i am good to go; despite installing Bonjour on the PC's they can't seem to print.
I was conducting a seminar when the PC used to project video decide it no longer liked talking to the projector. So I plugged a video adapter in my Mac and it recognized the new output, re-sized the screen and we were back in business - in less than 5 minutes.
The only thing I miss is games; and if I really wanted to play them I'd setup a bootcamp partition. Parallels works fine for non-game apps I use that have no Mac counterpoint; Crossover works well and is another options; as is Sun's free VM.
The Mac is not perfect; but it is a damn fine machine that works; and is priced on par with equivalent PCs; if you get one at the educational price during the annual back to school free "iPod" sale it's even more price competitive. There's plenty of FOSS solutions that obliviate the need to buy MS products; and if you really need Office MS sells it for around $70 at most campuses.
I speak from experience when I say a MacBook with Neo Office meets most college student's needs; adding a VM generally will take care of the rest. Apple's support is pretty darn good as well; I've had 3 Macs with keyboard cracks, where the cover rests on the keyboard, fixed for free even though the warranty had long expired. Applecare's phone support is pretty darned good as well.
Of course, there is a down side. When I wear a bow-tie at a client meeting I get the occasional "I figured you'd use a Mac as well" when I pull out my MacBook. Then again, I divide the world into two camps - Those who see my Marvin the Martian watch and say "Cool;" and those who simply back away frowning. I prefer to work with the former; life's to short to waste on up-tight clients.
Pager how quaint the US telecoms infrastructure is
True, but better is truly the enemy of good enough.
Pagers in general are reliable, have a long battery life, are durable, and have good coverage.
Having used one, there's a lot to be said for simply glancing at a tiny screen instead of having to turn on a phone and see what text I might have gotten.
Simply because technology is old does not mean it can't perform a useful function; people often get so caught up with bells and whistles they never ask "Do we really need those 'features'?"
The real problem is that the folks at AT&T, Verizon, et al., are allowed to provide the cell service and own the infrastructure. In this part of the country there's more than enough towers to provide good service all over the place, however largely because the towers are owned by different networks there's no guarantee that the tower a block away is the one your phone is connecting to.
Actually, most of the towers aren't owned by the carriers but by a company that specializes in towers (Crown Castle and American Tower are teh two big players); who then leases space on the tower to the phone company for their antennas. So the lack of antennas is because companies don't rent space; not because a competitor owns the tower.
As a side note to my OP (too bad you can't edit/.) the contract only requires connection to a live internet connection; I didn't see any requirement to power on the device or provide power to it.
According to the agreement, no internet connection is needed during transport between venues. So if it is in a perpetual state of transport; no connection is required. Could you not put it on a model railroad track and move it between two venues on a perpetual basis? You could create your own derivative work, Moving A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter, 2009 Among the Masses.
"...Do you really think for a minute if the government set engineering wages we'd not see companies move abroad where cheaper engineers are available?"
No, probably not, and I concede to the inevitability of market forces.
What galls me, however, is that everyone so mindlessly accepts the dichotomy of "The market does it or the government does it." I find the lack of imagination or thought depressing.
I don't think it's an either or; rather people become enamored of a "solution" and fail to consider the ramifications and behaviors it will drive. Afterwords, people say "We didn't think people would do THAT," or "That's not we intended." They seem truly surprised that most people will act in their own best interest.
Demand already outstrips supply - my company has 20 open positions in Atlanta, GA. They can't find QUALIFIED candidates for most of them.
Is it that they don't get enough qualified applicants or that that qualified applicant's aren't willing to work for the offered salary?
It's an honest question, not a snide remark. I've been approached for jobs where when I explain salary expectations many companies say they can't meet them. OTOH, I know of cases where companies simply don't get qualified applicants despite getting a long list of resumes.
OK, then in another dozen years or so, you'll have almost no CS or engineering graduates coming out of USA schools. No engineering innovation. We'll make our money on farm products and finance products:O
Or, demand will outstrip supply and salaries will go up. Part of the problem is many engineering students study what is hot and ignore market realities. When I worked in Silicon Valley, companies were desperately looking for EE's that could design analog systems; and paying big bucks. Friends in the utility industry have raised concerns that there will not be enough power and nuc engineers to meet future demands as the current crop retires; let alone meet anticipated growth needs.
But hey, if the USA can't live up to free market economic standards, well then by golly, it needs to declare bankruptcy and sold piecemeal to other countries like China and India. It's the sacred capitalist way! Make sure you guarantee it by voting Republican next November.
It isn't so much an R vs D issue; the market exerts it's pressure no matter who is in power and politicians pander to their own special interests in the naive belief that they can somehow better control the economy.
Professions that have been able to regulate supply to keep up wages eventually succumb to market forces (Pilots, Lawyers, Doctors and Autoworkers as examples)and either see real wages drop or jobs go away.
Do you really think for a minute if the government set engineering wages we'd not see companies move abroad where cheaper engineers are available?
Seriously. The Corporations know what the American people want more than the FCC. The Corporations will give America all the sex, drugs, and American Idol they want. FCC? Friggin' bunch of crazy Jesus freak Catholics pretty much.
Actually, most of the Catholic's I've met have no problem with nudity, alcohol or people enjoying themselves. The Baptists, however, seem to be in a constant state of worry that someone, somewhere, is having fun and that might lead to dancing...
If the government is serious about getting more engineers in the USA, there's a simple, easy answer. PAY THE ENGINEERS WHAT THEY'RE WORTH, not "What the wage-arbitraged market will bear."
The trouble is, that's what they are worth; and I say this as an engineer.
Slashdot Mirror
To give a not-yet-litigated example of what I think would be the 3d analogy: A 3d model exactly capturing the surface of the Washington Monument is not copyrightable, because it's mere facts. However, particular photographs or films of the Washington Monument are copyrightable, as they have creative presentation. However (again), someone who collected a bunch of photographs or films of it and extracted a 3d model of the Washington Monument from them, would not be violating the copyright on the photographs or films, because they were merely copying the facts (the 3d spatial position of the stones).
That's an interesting question - would the result be a derivative work and hence subject to the original's copyright? Each photo provides the photographer's view and distorts the actual relationship by the very act of capturing in 2d a 3d object.
I'm not saying that should be the case; but it could be.
Any real IP lawyers care to chime in?
Radar didn't exist during WWI, so U-Boats cruised on the surface with lookouts who could eyeball ships or ship smoke at 10 miles, maybe 20 on a good day.
Actaully, WWII boats also cruise on the surface looking for targets; once they found one they would maneuver to intercept and make a submerged attack run. It wasn't until nuclear power submarines came into existence that the submarine was transformed from a surface vessel that attacked submerged to a true submarine. Adm Flukey, amongst others, began cruising with the periscope fully extended to be able to see further over the horizon.
Yes, I realize the snorkel enabled longer under water operations, and that there are other propulsion systems that enable sustained underwater operations; but nuke boats were the technology that really changed submarine warfare.
After extinguishing the fire, douse the device with water or other non-alcoholic liquids to cool the device and prevent additional battery cells from reaching thermal runaway.
... Ok, so the battery is on fire and they want you to douse it with water. A LITHIUM battery... Cripes, I'm thinking these guys don't know what they are talking about. By the way, here's the doc I deal with at work
Hm.. This page has some interesting things on it. [findarticles.com]
*Water may be used to extinguish packaging fires if batteries have not ruptured; water is not an effective extinguishing agent for a battery fire. * For small fires involving the battery [extinguishing] media such as Lith-X or copper powder may be used, but should be applied with a long handled tool. Do not use CO2 or Halon directly on a battery fire as the exposed surface of the contained lithium may react with these materials.
Interesting stuff. I'm glad to see NAVSEA requires no venting for sub batteries; I wonder what they use on fires? Purple K was the old standby; made a hell of a mess though. A fire on a boat would be as dangerous as on a plane.
What's interesting is the divergent recommendations - on says Halon is OK; the other not. The FAA recommends dousing the battery in water to cool it after the fire is out. Halon was always the magic fire stopper since it interfered with the reaction with out reacting with the flammables; maybe that's not the case with Li-Ion cells? I don't know but am genuinely curious; especially as a real frequent flier.
Interesting. Lithium non-rechargeable sound like the ones I see in the grocery stores that are made as alkaline substitutes. The batteries I work with are Lithium-Ion rechargeable. I'd like to know how they expect to put out the rechargeable ones. So far as I know, they can't be put out. I would really like to know what they think could be used to extinguish them.
According to what I could find they recommend Halon extinguishers are effective, followed by cooling of the battery.
Relevant links I found are:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2009/SAFO09013.pdf
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/batteries.shtm
Not sure about alkaline and NiMHs, but the cabin crew is not going to be able to put out a lithium battery that's on fire. They self oxidize. And what would you think they could do? Pour water over it?
From TSA: Primary lithium batteries cannot be extinguished with firefighting agents normally carried on aircraft, whereas lithium-ion batteries are easily extinguished by most common extinguishing agents, including those carried on board commercial aircraft.
Primary lithium cells are non-rechargeable cells (what devices use them?); most cells carried on board would be lithium ion. Given that a fire from one could be extinguished it seems that since it would be more easily discovered early in the cabin vs in cargo a cargo ban seems reasonable. I fly a lot and can carry all my battery needs in carry on luggage; in fact I never check luggage unless absolutely necessary.
As for cargo flights, where significant amounts of batteries would be carried, figuring out how to safely do it seems reasonable. Given the lack of problems so far it would seem that significant changes would not be needed; but one can never be sure of what a change in regulation will cause. Perhaps fire suppression systems in containers carrying batteries? Then again, that will take space away from goods and result in higher per item transportation costs.
Mod parent "Too young to remember Apple II".
Yeah, I haven't seen anybody point it out yet, but my Apple II+ came with *schematics*. Jobs and Wozniak had been at HP, and HP instrumentation of the period (and for quite a long time afterward) had a very standard manual format. Part of that was complete schematics of the instrument. It rubbed off in the early days, particularly since the steves were also part of the bay area homebrew computer culture.
Not only that; but you could actually call Apple (pardon the pun) and speak to someone who could answer questions about the schematics. I really don't expect that from today's Apple; but illustrates the difference from the Woz and Jobs era and today.
But Mac OS X comes with development tools right on the install CD. How expensive (or difficult, back before bit torrent) it was to get a development environment up and running on Windows was what drove me to Linux and I'm pleased that Apple make it so easy to get programming tools on your Mac.
I think the article author was making a different point than the cost / availability of developer tools:
Apple, way back when, made it easy to get into the inner workings of its systems. They didn't try to prevent people from finding ways to do things, indeed Beagle Bros. built an entire company around that. 1984 was the epitome of what Apple was about.
Now, Apple appears to be more ideologically aligned with the "Big Brother" than the hammer thrower. While it's not quite gotten to the "Information Purification Directives" level yet; Apple seems to be much more inclinned to ensuring things are done there way and controlling how their products can be used tahn creating really cool stuff and watching what others do with it, as they were in the Apple ][ era.
While Job's focus and control has been critical to their success as a company; the down side is a very tight controlled ecosystem. A very successful one, and probably the right way to go; but still controlled.
I'm just saying I don't find the anti-wind arguments convincing. "It's ugly" is just opinion, and "it kills birds" is factually wrong, at least in the sense that the statement is supposed to imply an amount of bird death that is worth mentioning or caring about.
Bats on the other hand...
I'm not either, we're probably pretty close, based on the posts, in our energy viewpoint. My comment on bird kills was the effect on, in the US, protected species such as Golden Eagles (80 kills per year at Altoma Pass); and that any source of energy has an impact on the environment that must be considered.
Too often, proponents of any energy source want to minimize any negative effects while trumpeting those of other energy sources. That prevents reasoned and open debate to designed to come up with a workable compromise solution.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes
bird strikes, is that ALL you can come up with ??? a well placed turbine has only a few hits per year (a lot less than a mile of highway). ugly? well, let's tear down 99% of all buildings then.
We can add to the list noise, space requirements,variability of power, maintenance and access needs, etc. No source of power is ideal; the key is getting the right mix.
If you want to use automotive deaths as the barometer for technological safety, virtually any technology, especially for power generation, now in use is safer.
The cooling tower exhaust plume is not nuclear related
The point was eye-sore, not nuclear-waste, related.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.
I think wind farms are beautiful compared to the vast majority of man-made structures, and as a bird lover, I am quite confident that bird deaths are negligible, and the issues that did exist are in the past.
Well, a 1000MW nuke would need about 500 2MW wind turbines over about 200 acres of land - I'd not consider that a very beautiful item either.Personally, I consider the turbines I've seen mounted on hilltops eyesores that ruin the view; but that's my opinion.
That's not even considering the variability in wind output - and extra capacity needed to ensure you have enough power to reliably meet demand.
My point is a mix of energy sources are needed to generate the reliable energy we depend on as economies.
As for wind, it's nice but wind farms are ugly and have environmental impacts of their own; such as bird strikes.
The real issue is how do we produce energy to run a modern economy? There is no one solution.
Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight?
They're just following the first rule of politics - no government spending is wasteful if it occurs in your district.
On that same note, let something happen to one of my loved ones while you stand by and watch and you better prey to whatever god you worship that I don't find out. I have no problem with revenge against useless fucks too lazy to do anything to help others. No, I don't expect an unarmed person to go after some guy with a knife or gun, but I do expect an appropriate response such as calling for help or calling a doctor. Not everybody is a hero, but everyone SHOULD be a responsible citizen.
What would be ironic someone intervened to prevent you from carrying out your revenge; acting as a responsible citizen.
This is a really stupid law - so the police decide to charge someone they think is a witness. If they're smart, they immediately lawyer up. So now teh police need to investigate a misdemeanor; go to court, and probably not get the information they want. Meanwhile, they've wasted resources that could go to solving real crimes. A judge whose trying to run a rocket docket would probably wonder why a DA is wasting time on such a case.
Yes, I also think people should be responsible and act to help others, but criminalizing the failure to act is not the solution.
You know the knobs driving around your city right now with one hand on the wheel and a cellphone in the other? Imagine them in the air...
Yes, and I figure it would take a few months or so for natural selection to work its course. You'd have to seek shelter during that period; but afterward - no cellphone network congestion or traffic jams.
Seriously though, my college aged daughter says the PC we sent off to school with is not good enough. She _needs_ an Mac. When asked why she can't say specifically why a Mac would be a better choice other than "everyone" has one. It's the way the product has been marketed - as a tool for the elite or more discriminating user. Translation, status symbol.
Well, one advantage to the Mac I've found is things simply "just work" much more often than on a PC. I use a MacBook at work; paid for it myself even though I also have a Dell. With Office I have no compatibility issues; and the Mac has been much easier to use on the road than the Dell. For example:
At one of our partners, I am the only person from my company that can print on their network. My Mac found their Bonjour printer and i am good to go; despite installing Bonjour on the PC's they can't seem to print.
I was conducting a seminar when the PC used to project video decide it no longer liked talking to the projector. So I plugged a video adapter in my Mac and it recognized the new output, re-sized the screen and we were back in business - in less than 5 minutes.
The only thing I miss is games; and if I really wanted to play them I'd setup a bootcamp partition. Parallels works fine for non-game apps I use that have no Mac counterpoint; Crossover works well and is another options; as is Sun's free VM.
The Mac is not perfect; but it is a damn fine machine that works; and is priced on par with equivalent PCs; if you get one at the educational price during the annual back to school free "iPod" sale it's even more price competitive. There's plenty of FOSS solutions that obliviate the need to buy MS products; and if you really need Office MS sells it for around $70 at most campuses.
I speak from experience when I say a MacBook with Neo Office meets most college student's needs; adding a VM generally will take care of the rest. Apple's support is pretty darn good as well; I've had 3 Macs with keyboard cracks, where the cover rests on the keyboard, fixed for free even though the warranty had long expired. Applecare's phone support is pretty darned good as well.
Of course, there is a down side. When I wear a bow-tie at a client meeting I get the occasional "I figured you'd use a Mac as well" when I pull out my MacBook. Then again, I divide the world into two camps - Those who see my Marvin the Martian watch and say "Cool;" and those who simply back away frowning. I prefer to work with the former; life's to short to waste on up-tight clients.
well, it would be OK, except for the daily Jobs worship hours...
well, some jobs are better than others...
Pager how quaint the US telecoms infrastructure is
True, but better is truly the enemy of good enough.
Pagers in general are reliable, have a long battery life, are durable, and have good coverage.
Having used one, there's a lot to be said for simply glancing at a tiny screen instead of having to turn on a phone and see what text I might have gotten.
Simply because technology is old does not mean it can't perform a useful function; people often get so caught up with bells and whistles they never ask "Do we really need those 'features'?"
The real problem is that the folks at AT&T, Verizon, et al., are allowed to provide the cell service and own the infrastructure. In this part of the country there's more than enough towers to provide good service all over the place, however largely because the towers are owned by different networks there's no guarantee that the tower a block away is the one your phone is connecting to.
Actually, most of the towers aren't owned by the carriers but by a company that specializes in towers (Crown Castle and American Tower are teh two big players); who then leases space on the tower to the phone company for their antennas. So the lack of antennas is because companies don't rent space; not because a competitor owns the tower.
As a side note to my OP (too bad you can't edit /.) the contract only requires connection to a live internet connection; I didn't see any requirement to power on the device or provide power to it.
According to the agreement, no internet connection is needed during transport between venues. So if it is in a perpetual state of transport; no connection is required. Could you not put it on a model railroad track and move it between two venues on a perpetual basis? You could create your own derivative work, Moving A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter, 2009 Among the Masses.
"...Do you really think for a minute if the government set engineering wages we'd not see companies move abroad where cheaper engineers are available?"
No, probably not, and I concede to the inevitability of market forces.
What galls me, however, is that everyone so mindlessly accepts the dichotomy of "The market does it or the government does it." I find the lack of imagination or thought depressing.
I don't think it's an either or; rather people become enamored of a "solution" and fail to consider the ramifications and behaviors it will drive. Afterwords, people say "We didn't think people would do THAT," or "That's not we intended." They seem truly surprised that most people will act in their own best interest.
Demand already outstrips supply - my company has 20 open positions in Atlanta, GA. They can't find QUALIFIED candidates for most of them.
Is it that they don't get enough qualified applicants or that that qualified applicant's aren't willing to work for the offered salary?
It's an honest question, not a snide remark. I've been approached for jobs where when I explain salary expectations many companies say they can't meet them. OTOH, I know of cases where companies simply don't get qualified applicants despite getting a long list of resumes.
OK, then in another dozen years or so, you'll have almost no CS or engineering graduates coming out of USA schools. No engineering innovation. We'll make our money on farm products and finance products :O
Or, demand will outstrip supply and salaries will go up. Part of the problem is many engineering students study what is hot and ignore market realities. When I worked in Silicon Valley, companies were desperately looking for EE's that could design analog systems; and paying big bucks. Friends in the utility industry have raised concerns that there will not be enough power and nuc engineers to meet future demands as the current crop retires; let alone meet anticipated growth needs.
But hey, if the USA can't live up to free market economic standards, well then by golly, it needs to declare bankruptcy and sold piecemeal to other countries like China and India. It's the sacred capitalist way! Make sure you guarantee it by voting Republican next November.
It isn't so much an R vs D issue; the market exerts it's pressure no matter who is in power and politicians pander to their own special interests in the naive belief that they can somehow better control the economy.
Professions that have been able to regulate supply to keep up wages eventually succumb to market forces (Pilots, Lawyers, Doctors and Autoworkers as examples)and either see real wages drop or jobs go away.
Do you really think for a minute if the government set engineering wages we'd not see companies move abroad where cheaper engineers are available?
Seriously. The Corporations know what the American people want more than the FCC. The Corporations will give America all the sex, drugs, and American Idol they want. FCC? Friggin' bunch of crazy Jesus freak Catholics pretty much.
Actually, most of the Catholic's I've met have no problem with nudity, alcohol or people enjoying themselves. The Baptists, however, seem to be in a constant state of worry that someone, somewhere, is having fun and that might lead to dancing...
If the government is serious about getting more engineers in the USA, there's a simple, easy answer. PAY THE ENGINEERS WHAT THEY'RE WORTH, not "What the wage-arbitraged market will bear."
The trouble is, that's what they are worth; and I say this as an engineer.