I gave a lot of thought to what you (and everyone else) has said. I agree that Java is a simple way to start programming, but aside from that, I must part company.
I'm not sure why BASIC still isn't an option. I wrote my first BASIC program when I was 7 (one of those "guess my number" deals). So did everyone else I know that's still programming today. So why not give it a shot?
I personally think that C++ is the way to go (not to start a flame war, but). It's complexity almost makes it easier to learn because there are SO many different ways to accomplish a task. A little of this, a little of that, and BAM. Just my two cents.
I'll start by saying that MS Office is just plain easier to use than anything anyone else has to offer, IMHO.
But that's not to say that it has to be that way. The majority of today's workforce wasn't raised on computer technology. We shouldn't rush to overthrow the tried-and-true in today's corporate market. Open source, Linux, etc., should be implemented in the schools. Today's students will grow up having the means with which to understand the open-sorce movement and perhaps grow it to be a true option in their workforce of tomorrow.
The February 2003 issue of Discover Magazine had an interview with ornithologist and evolutionary biologist Alan Feduccia about this same topic. He argues that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, and talks about scores of fake fossils coming from a rumored "fossil-factory" in China. Interesting read.
NJ did this a year or two ago. At the time I was working for a telecom interconnect. What a pain it was to reprogram the routes and dialing plans on all those PBX/PABXs. Especially the older ones. Can't imagine what you'd have to go through in NYC.
Think about this: You use 212 in your home. Then you get a fax line. That's 646. Then you move to Queens where you're number is 718. The pizza place down the street is 347. Then you visit your friend who's area code is 347. You're still going to call the same pizza place, but are you going to remember to dial the area code? No, only if you're forced to do it ALL THE TIME!
This is from the same person that asked, "Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" (Dubya, January 29, 2000, Slate.) Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Go here. Now. It's the most complete listing of distributed computing I've ever found. Has the usual, like folding and SETI, but also neat things like Distributed Proofreading and finding as-of-yet unknown comets.
Go here. Now. It's the most complete listing of distributed computing I've ever found. Has the usual, like folding and SETI, but also neat things like Distributed Proofreading and finding as-of-yet unknown comets. A must-see! Forty-Two thumbs up!
John Gribbin is by far one of the best authors on "layman physics" I've ever read. Q is for Quantum is an encyclopedia of physics terms (mostly those related to quantum physics and relativity) and is a must-have as a reference. Especially while reading his other books.
I strongly suggest you do not install fiber. For many reasons. First, fiber is expensive. Second, terminating fiber is expensive. Third, the toold are expensive. Fourth, the NICs and hubs/switches are expensive. Fifth, you can't just "run" fiber. It takes special conduit, or armored fiber. Feel free to contact me with more information.
Sure. Humans are (and I'm sure I'm guilty by making this statement) the only present lifeform (on Earth) capable of being intentionaly conceited. Homocentric, if you will. And this is why we think we'll be around for billions of years. Which, I'm sure, we will not be. As far as the technological concerns, the billions of years are broken down into smaller increments, so we use todays technology today, and tomorrow's tomorrow. However, I can't see that any future technology will have much bearing on the Earth, as it is almost completely environmental and behavioral. Technology doesn't change humans as humans, and that will be the cause of our decline, and no future technological enhancements can change that.
I can think of dozens of reasons why it would be a waste of time. When you change the orbit of Earth, you are changing its distance in relation to other planets and the sun. This would effectively alter the gravitational field felt on Earth. Eventually Earth would cross paths with other planets (and/or moons) whether by gravitational pull or by artificially changing the orbit. If this is the case, then it would be more efficient to terraform the other planet in question, since science is already working on such a proposition.
What wasn't accounted for is the fact that the Sun will eventually cool down into a cold, dead star. At this point, it will have a strong gravitational pull, low energy and high entropy. Basically, the sun will be totally useless, unless we can find some way to harness its gravitational energy (which is almost pointless as gravity is the weakest of the four forces of nature).
In short, we'd be better off spending our time doing other things. Earth has adapted over time, and there's no proof that it won't stop doing so. Life wasn't always as we see it now, and in all likelihood it won't be for long. On average, a major extinction occurs every 50,000 years or so, which means that we're due for one soon. And the next species of intelligent life (and all other life for that matter) on Earth will be better equipped to handle the pressures of the new environment. If the Earth can withstand what it has (you try to withstand a volcano!), a little heat won't do much. Just let evolution take its natural course. It's worked for 15 billion years, so we ought to give it some credit.
It would be different if the device could read nerve signals that do not correspond to muscle movements, but that does not appear to be the case.
There would be many disadvantages to using non-muscular impulses. On the not-so-serious side, what if the pilot has a vision of the plane crashing? That would suck. But by using muscular impulses, the pilot need not learn anything new. In addition, he/she would have greater control over the airplane. Also, accidents would be greatly reduced due to the fact that there are fewer mechanical devices. The neural net learns your motions, so any excessive movement would be cancelled-out by the computer. It can also re-learn if parts of the plane become disabled.
I don't think my name needs much explaining, but for those of you who need to know, Mostly Harmless is the fifth, and last, book of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy (for those who don't know, HHGTTG is a five-part "trilogy"). It also happens to be my favorite installment. And there, fellow Slashdotters, is my story.
About a year ago, I was attending a Win2000 Preinstallation training seminar (not for fun), and the Microsoft Tech giving the presentation had the balls to admit that he uses Linux at home. He hinted that his reasoning was that MS products are too buggy, too expensive, and too sloppy (i.e., the code). Sounds to me that not all of MS thinks Linux is going down...
I'm left wondering whether Java will still be a smart choice 4 or 5 years down the line. What if, all the sudden, C# takes over Java's place, or some crazy other language. And are they going to teach Micro$oft's Java or Sun's Java? Java Swings, JavaScript, JavaBeans, what? I admit I know little about the language, but I am familiar white quite a few others, and could easily make a better case for others.
Good point, but I was referring more to the fact that IBM has released news on the CMOS 9S and the MRAM in the past week. It's been mostly AMD and Intel in the past year. IBM has been around since long before the two of them, but hasn't been making much noise in recent months.
I remember a while back IBM announcing that they'll be using SOI technology with Alpha procs. CMOS 9S (not CMOS 99) and Alpha? What a team. The press release from the horse's mouth is here. Thet whole "low-k dielectric" thing reminds me of an article I read some time ago (June 1998) in Discover.
Well, you have to think of this from a production standpoint. Today, 256MB technology is feasable. Maybe they don't yet have stable enough technology to produce a 1GB chip. You can't plan for something that doesn't work yet. Why not, then, produce a 1 terabyte chip for test purposes, spend millions of dollars, and in 2003 say, "oops, it doesn't work." We probably won't be seeing MRAM on the desktop for another 10 years anyway, which gives IBM plenty of time to develop a chip worthy of the times.
According to the press release issued by IBM, "IBM Research pioneered development of a miniature component called the 'magnetic tunnel junction' as early as 1974, eventually adapting it as a means to store information and to build a working MRAM chip in 1998." So, while magnetic field lines have been around since quite some time before 1974, IBM developed the technology to make small, efficient RAM chips possible using magnetism.
Magnetic tape and drums aren't quite analogous to modern memory modules. The article says that most of the development time has been spent making MRAM chips (no, not tape, drums, etc) small enough to be cost effective. It doesn't say that IBM invented the magnet, nor magnetic storage, but Magnetic Random Access Memory chips.
All DSL providers are liars. It's all due to simple math. ISPs advertise speeds in terms of ATM data rates. However, ATM headers compromise 10% of the total rate. Furthermore, TCP/IP is another 3%. So in total, for a TCP/IP over ATM connection (i.e., DSL), you can expect to take off a minimum of 13% of the advertised rate. Then there's always latency, packet loss, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
I gave a lot of thought to what you (and everyone else) has said. I agree that Java is a simple way to start programming, but aside from that, I must part company.
I'm not sure why BASIC still isn't an option. I wrote my first BASIC program when I was 7 (one of those "guess my number" deals). So did everyone else I know that's still programming today. So why not give it a shot?
I personally think that C++ is the way to go (not to start a flame war, but). It's complexity almost makes it easier to learn because there are SO many different ways to accomplish a task. A little of this, a little of that, and BAM. Just my two cents.
I'll start by saying that MS Office is just plain easier to use than anything anyone else has to offer, IMHO.
But that's not to say that it has to be that way. The majority of today's workforce wasn't raised on computer technology. We shouldn't rush to overthrow the tried-and-true in today's corporate market. Open source, Linux, etc., should be implemented in the schools. Today's students will grow up having the means with which to understand the open-sorce movement and perhaps grow it to be a true option in their workforce of tomorrow.
The February 2003 issue of Discover Magazine had an interview with ornithologist and evolutionary biologist Alan Feduccia about this same topic. He argues that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, and talks about scores of fake fossils coming from a rumored "fossil-factory" in China. Interesting read.
NJ did this a year or two ago. At the time I was working for a telecom interconnect. What a pain it was to reprogram the routes and dialing plans on all those PBX/PABXs. Especially the older ones. Can't imagine what you'd have to go through in NYC.
Think about this: You use 212 in your home. Then you get a fax line. That's 646. Then you move to Queens where you're number is 718. The pizza place down the street is 347. Then you visit your friend who's area code is 347. You're still going to call the same pizza place, but are you going to remember to dial the area code? No, only if you're forced to do it ALL THE TIME!
This is from the same person that asked, "Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" (Dubya, January 29, 2000, Slate.) Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Something I posted on 10/24...
Go here. Now. It's the most complete listing of distributed computing I've ever found. Has the usual, like folding and SETI, but also neat things like Distributed Proofreading and finding as-of-yet unknown comets.
Go here. Now. It's the most complete listing of distributed computing I've ever found. Has the usual, like folding and SETI, but also neat things like Distributed Proofreading and finding as-of-yet unknown comets. A must-see! Forty-Two thumbs up!
Prostrate cancer? Is that the kind of cancer you get when you lie down excessively? Interesting...
John Gribbin is by far one of the best authors on "layman physics" I've ever read. Q is for Quantum is an encyclopedia of physics terms (mostly those related to quantum physics and relativity) and is a must-have as a reference. Especially while reading his other books.
I strongly suggest you do not install fiber. For many reasons. First, fiber is expensive. Second, terminating fiber is expensive. Third, the toold are expensive. Fourth, the NICs and hubs/switches are expensive. Fifth, you can't just "run" fiber. It takes special conduit, or armored fiber. Feel free to contact me with more information.
Sure. Humans are (and I'm sure I'm guilty by making this statement) the only present lifeform (on Earth) capable of being intentionaly conceited. Homocentric, if you will. And this is why we think we'll be around for billions of years. Which, I'm sure, we will not be. As far as the technological concerns, the billions of years are broken down into smaller increments, so we use todays technology today, and tomorrow's tomorrow. However, I can't see that any future technology will have much bearing on the Earth, as it is almost completely environmental and behavioral. Technology doesn't change humans as humans, and that will be the cause of our decline, and no future technological enhancements can change that.
I can think of dozens of reasons why it would be a waste of time. When you change the orbit of Earth, you are changing its distance in relation to other planets and the sun. This would effectively alter the gravitational field felt on Earth. Eventually Earth would cross paths with other planets (and/or moons) whether by gravitational pull or by artificially changing the orbit. If this is the case, then it would be more efficient to terraform the other planet in question, since science is already working on such a proposition.
What wasn't accounted for is the fact that the Sun will eventually cool down into a cold, dead star. At this point, it will have a strong gravitational pull, low energy and high entropy. Basically, the sun will be totally useless, unless we can find some way to harness its gravitational energy (which is almost pointless as gravity is the weakest of the four forces of nature).
In short, we'd be better off spending our time doing other things. Earth has adapted over time, and there's no proof that it won't stop doing so. Life wasn't always as we see it now, and in all likelihood it won't be for long. On average, a major extinction occurs every 50,000 years or so, which means that we're due for one soon. And the next species of intelligent life (and all other life for that matter) on Earth will be better equipped to handle the pressures of the new environment. If the Earth can withstand what it has (you try to withstand a volcano!), a little heat won't do much. Just let evolution take its natural course. It's worked for 15 billion years, so we ought to give it some credit.
It would be different if the device could read nerve signals that do not correspond to muscle movements, but that does not appear to be the case.
There would be many disadvantages to using non-muscular impulses. On the not-so-serious side, what if the pilot has a vision of the plane crashing? That would suck. But by using muscular impulses, the pilot need not learn anything new. In addition, he/she would have greater control over the airplane. Also, accidents would be greatly reduced due to the fact that there are fewer mechanical devices. The neural net learns your motions, so any excessive movement would be cancelled-out by the computer. It can also re-learn if parts of the plane become disabled.
I don't think my name needs much explaining, but for those of you who need to know, Mostly Harmless is the fifth, and last, book of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy (for those who don't know, HHGTTG is a five-part "trilogy"). It also happens to be my favorite installment. And there, fellow Slashdotters, is my story.
About a year ago, I was attending a Win2000 Preinstallation training seminar (not for fun), and the Microsoft Tech giving the presentation had the balls to admit that he uses Linux at home. He hinted that his reasoning was that MS products are too buggy, too expensive, and too sloppy (i.e., the code). Sounds to me that not all of MS thinks Linux is going down...
I'm left wondering whether Java will still be a smart choice 4 or 5 years down the line. What if, all the sudden, C# takes over Java's place, or some crazy other language. And are they going to teach Micro$oft's Java or Sun's Java? Java Swings, JavaScript, JavaBeans, what? I admit I know little about the language, but I am familiar white quite a few others, and could easily make a better case for others.
Good point, but I was referring more to the fact that IBM has released news on the CMOS 9S and the MRAM in the past week. It's been mostly AMD and Intel in the past year. IBM has been around since long before the two of them, but hasn't been making much noise in recent months.
One more thing I'd like to add. Now that IBM seems to be actually doing something, why not combine this whole CMOS 9S thing with MRAM?
I remember a while back IBM announcing that they'll be using SOI technology with Alpha procs. CMOS 9S (not CMOS 99) and Alpha? What a team. The press release from the horse's mouth is here. Thet whole "low-k dielectric" thing reminds me of an article I read some time ago (June 1998) in Discover.
Well, you have to think of this from a production standpoint. Today, 256MB technology is feasable. Maybe they don't yet have stable enough technology to produce a 1GB chip. You can't plan for something that doesn't work yet. Why not, then, produce a 1 terabyte chip for test purposes, spend millions of dollars, and in 2003 say, "oops, it doesn't work." We probably won't be seeing MRAM on the desktop for another 10 years anyway, which gives IBM plenty of time to develop a chip worthy of the times.
And I almost forgot, according to the IEEE, The IBM 305 RAMAC was the first disk memory system.
According to the press release issued by IBM, "IBM Research pioneered development of a miniature component called the 'magnetic tunnel junction' as early as 1974, eventually adapting it as a means to store information and to build a working MRAM chip in 1998." So, while magnetic field lines have been around since quite some time before 1974, IBM developed the technology to make small, efficient RAM chips possible using magnetism.
Magnetic tape and drums aren't quite analogous to modern memory modules. The article says that most of the development time has been spent making MRAM chips (no, not tape, drums, etc) small enough to be cost effective. It doesn't say that IBM invented the magnet, nor magnetic storage, but Magnetic Random Access Memory chips.
All DSL providers are liars. It's all due to simple math. ISPs advertise speeds in terms of ATM data rates. However, ATM headers compromise 10% of the total rate. Furthermore, TCP/IP is another 3%. So in total, for a TCP/IP over ATM connection (i.e., DSL), you can expect to take off a minimum of 13% of the advertised rate. Then there's always latency, packet loss, etc...