I think there will always be Joe Sixpack who does not want to fiddle with the installation. As long as he can get his pr0n, everything will be fine. So, I don't see the harm in informing fellow/. readers about such practices.
Now you can include the posting of above list to above list, which of course is recursive and will blow the minds of the (already mindless) trolls to pieces... POW!! Mission accomplished...
Software companies really do lose money from piracy, why else would they support these types of organizations?
Well... my point of view is that the companies do support these types of organizations because it is a good investment. The do not lose money from so called "piracy", it's more that they could earn even more. So, investing in organizations that fight "piracy" is a good deal, as long as the revenue made from "converted pirates" is higher than the original investment.
But since nobody really can say whether all caught "pirates" really would have bought the stuff they "pirated", the whole thing is somewhat hard to prove.
Yeah, I wonder if a certain robot is behind all this...
BTW: If mules are infertile, where do they come from? Do we have to deal with a bunch of sex-fixated donkeys out there, trying to mate with horses whenever they can? On the other hand: most mules are used in rough terrain, like moutains. If I were a horse, I'd probably agree to this as well, rather then living in total celibate. Hell, even as a human... NO! This thought goes to far... =:*)
will this make it easier to make the mod chips for engines: ie the extra horsepower or higher rpm computer mods that are available for a lot of vehicles
No, since those who are competent already know. I am am afraid of those who are just now thinking of joining the business... Already too much black sheeps out there. Hell, I think the whole car chipmod community consists of black sheeps with a few whites outlaws among them...
Don't confuse math with simple number crunching
on
Engineer in a Box?
·
· Score: 1
This might be controversial but my view point has always been that an engineer needs to be good at math, but using calculators or computers for pure number cruncing is OK. Don't confuse them. As an engineer you need to understand underlying principles, but you are not required to exercise simple craftmanship each time you need something done. It's like CAD and drafting. Nowadays (almost) everybody works in 3D, which enables one to do the creative part (concept modeling) without the need to think of the actual drawing part (perspective drafts). Once you model is done, you let the CAD system derive 2D views, to which you attach dimensions etc. This, ladies and gentlemen, was a revolution in engineering. Sure, old guys moaned about the "lost art of drafting", but for the first time en engineer could be creative without the need to bother with technicalities right from the start. Does it mean that every idiot can be an engineer now? Heck, no! Enter MBS (multi-body systems). For the first time you can simulate dynamics on 3D models without the need for complicated 3D matrix operations or graphical methods. Sure, we lost focus on those methods but that does not mean either, that you can start right away without having a clue of how it works under the hood.
Enter FEM/CFD. There are now packages available that focus on design engineers rather than calculation engineers. Everything is a little less complicated but still truely useful. Guess what, you still need to know how it works and what the best practices are. Or you will get yourself into deep trouble.
Enter packages like MATLAB, Mathematica, MAPLE, MathCAD... Powerful, yet you need to have profound knowledge in math!
See my point? Sure, today's engineers have less knowledge of yesterday's graphical methods for solving kinematics or statical problems. But they have a lot more knowledge of sophisticated calculation types like FEM, CFD, Dynamic Simulation of whatever type. Being an engineer today is more than just being good at producing 2D drafts of the 3D world. All those number-crunching packages free us engineers and give us the time to examine more sophisticated problems. In my mind, we have evolved, rather than degenerated.
My guess about Mr. Robert W. Lucky: He is about 60 years old and deeply frustrated because on the one side he doesn't want to learn those new things (so he declares them unnecessary and distractive) but on the other he is envious of not being young again (and able to play with all these cool toys)...;-)
Yeah, but you can find something stupid in any name. If they had called it "Aero", we would say something about "hot air". Let's see, what the marketing guys will come up with. Maybe "light weight with heavyweight usability"...
Well, at least they have resisted calling it "i"-something. "iPalm", "iDA", "iMdumb" or whatever...;-)
I see they`ve taken alot from the Sony Clie`s design.
If I may quote the linked article: Yesterday's ZDnet article on this model mentioned that Palm had hired some designers from Sony to help design this model. Some people have misinterpreted this to mean that Sony officially helped Palm design the Tungsten T, which is not the case. A Sony spokesperson confirmed that his company had nothing to do with the design. Palm did hire some designers away from it but Sony wasn't cooperating in any way.
I guess, with yesterday's ZDnet article they meant this one. On the linked page, there is one discussion around display (excellent on Sony models) vs battery life (where Palm is outstanding). My current Palm V gives me approximately 3 weeks. If I'd get one with crisp color display that has a battery life of at least 2 weeks at normal use, I'd be convinced and rush out to buy one...
(...)I just want to know how they beat the Drakh plague!
Yeah, me too. May be a chance for JMS to put it out as a book? Don't know if he sold the copyright for the story as well or just the script for the TV series...
Well, it's a sad thing to write, but maybe they just make more profit with other series of lower quality? It's like when the Babylon 5 spin-offs where killed... Here's a good statement from JMS about this.
The analogy I can find, is to Fast Food: Low-quality stuff for the masses (but it's practical and I'm enjoying it sometimes). Guaranteed profit. The stuff I consider high-quality, is a matter of taste. So the market is limited and profits not guaranteed. If you would run a restaurant for a living, what would you offer?
The unfortunate downside to Word--which we have seen in more than one high profile case--is its propensity for keeping invisible records of revisions within a document.
The last thing you want to send out with a draft contract or other legal document is a complete revision history.
OK, but do you really send out Wordfiles? Don't you send out either printed copies or PDF files? I can hardly believe this... Well, even if you need the possibility to edit documents, you can still use Acrobat Exchange. Platform independent and no outdated revisions in the background... as long as you always choose "Save as". Which, btw you could do in Word as well and get rid of "history"...
Nicely put, I cannot agree more. Unfortunately, military budgets are still the biggest black holes in our economies (yes yes, I am aware of this "war as the great inventor" speech... and still refuse to see it as a necessity..... but that might be somewhat OT in this discussion)
Well, I cannot agree with you (but do not think that your comment was trollish, either).
Leave ideology to the fundamentalists and let us talk about science. Science has always had a borderline to technology or engineering, which is applied science. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish, but nevertheless, we should make that distinction. IMHO, the urge fore profit comes with appliance of science, not with the original science itself. And yes, it is OK to have that capitalistic element, because it is a great motivator to actually make thinks usable. Academia sometimes has the tendency to produce proof-of-concepts and then jump to a whole different topic, like a child who has enough of it's legos for today and now wants to play a videogame...
If both sides are balanced, the system works. Unfortunately, recently the focus has dramatically shifted towards applied science. The public has somehow been told that all the other stuff going on is just some esotheric nonsense, paid by tax money. Sad...
I agree, that the journal publishers provide nothing more than a peer-mating service and copyediting.
That's why I find it a scandal that they charge that much for a copy. It is not, that they actually have pay to much for, because AFAIK peer-review is done for the fame alone. As I see it, they get copyright on articles, written by tax-funded researchers... and earn quite well on it.
I would be very much on favour for kind of a GPL for research papers. Anyone knows about such tendencies?
(By the way: I always found this link quite useful)
Being a design engineer in the vehicle industry, I can deny with absolute certainty that IT might be overrated. Solid modelling (aka 3D CAD) is standard since mid-90's and other things like PDM is rapidly catching on. Even the smallest of our suppliers seems finally to have understood the need.
On the other hand, you have dynamic simulation, like MBS, opening a completely new field for the engineer: real dynamics instead of just kinematics!
So, the role of IT for the R&D departments in the industry can hardly be overrated! Anybody who is implying this is {insert your favorite noun here}. And since our IT decision makers are all having an engineering degree (or are supervised by ones who have), our budget for IT is steadily increasing (or at least constant on a high level), largely unaffected by the collapse of the.com bubble.
Well, but on the other hand....: The original article was about how daily temperatures (i.e. weather, not climate) are affected by jet exhausts. There temperature data from the past 3.5*10^12 (or even the past 4000) years would certainly distort the picture. Ideally, you would measure this week, stop all airplanes and measure next week again (hopefully with no general weather change in between).
Sorry to dissapoint you, but this is no troll, it's my opinion
OK, I think I might have overreacted reg the "troll". Sorry for this!
However, I think you make a mistake by assuming that you need all the earlier data in order to deliver a clear trend. IMHO your argument would be more valid (but not 100%, let me come to this later on)... when they would attempt to extrapolate the climate for the next 3.5X10^12 years. But nobody wants to do this, we are talking about the next 100 years or so! Surely, than the temperatures of the last 4000 years should be enough?? You try to extrapolate 100% to 102.5% -- statistically totally valid.
Second point (reg why not 100% after all): The Humans and the process of inductrialisation have influenced the ecosphere quite much, so the data of 100000 years ago (even if available) wouldn't be relevant anymore and just distort the trend.
Well, but IANAS - "I am not a statistician"... lol
I love the "3 days isn't statistically significant" crowd. 100% ack. I am quite ashamed that such stupid discussions happens here on/. (4 threads only on that "wrong statistics" BS).
I don't want to sound elitarian but if one is not a scientist or at least very familiar with the topic and statistics in general, one should just try to STFU^H^H^H^H^H learn by browsing the availableresources instead of posting confused comments. As one wrote before: The saddest thing is that these postings got moderated up...
I suspect that any competent statistician would laugh you out of his office if you asked him to attempt to calculate a trend with a sample that small.
No sir, ever scientist working on that topic would simply refuse to talk to you other than in a low and calming voice.
There a hundreds of good sites on the internet, try http://www.climate.org/ for an easy starter. Don't forget the Scientific American article. And do some googeling.
As someone who grew up in the former G.D.R.(German Democratic Republic), I think I am allowed to draw a parallel here: The Berlin Wall (here an excellent link for those of you who wants to polish up there German language capabilities) was originally erected in order to protect East Germany from the West (and to retain the people in the Soviet Occupation Zone). The GDR-offiziell term for this perverse building was "Antifascistic Protective Wall"... wink wink, nudge nudge, know whatahmean, say no more?(see).
The bottom line is: While I am quite tempted to see a European Net as a way to protect us Europeans from the sillyness and corruption of the current US government (no offence to you honest US citizens), I cannot see why the European government(s) should be somehow immune against stupidity and corruption... Ultimately, a European Net would be used to imprison us rather than to protect us from the outside world.
I totally agree with you and all the others out there who promote Matlab - a great tool! And all the available toolboxes (like Simulink) certainly don't make it less desirable...
One guy recommended using C++ together with specialised toolboxes... no need for this with Matlab! Sure, if you only need to do something once or twice, the price tag is an obstacle. But in the industry it's often more costly to have an engineer using 2 more weeks on a problem than coughing up the money for a license...
Now they will probably test everyone for this gene along with drugs. Everyone that happens to have this gene won't be able to get a job. Just substitute "crime gene" for Jew, and we have Nazi Germany all over again... I agree... But remember the recents discussion about the "scientific proof of colored people's inferiority"? Well, there you don't even need a gene test. Anyway, once again we have scientists who willingly put such arguments into the hands of (potential) fascists...
Slashdot Mirror
I think there will always be Joe Sixpack who does not want to fiddle with the installation. As long as he can get his pr0n, everything will be fine. So, I don't see the harm in informing fellow /. readers about such practices.
Now you can include the posting of above list to above list, which of course is recursive and will blow the minds of the (already mindless) trolls to pieces... POW!! Mission accomplished...
Software companies really do lose money from piracy, why else would they support these types of organizations?
Well... my point of view is that the companies do support these types of organizations because it is a good investment. The do not lose money from so called "piracy", it's more that they could earn even more. So, investing in organizations that fight "piracy" is a good deal, as long as the revenue made from "converted pirates" is higher than the original investment.
But since nobody really can say whether all caught "pirates" really would have bought the stuff they "pirated", the whole thing is somewhat hard to prove.
Yeah, I wonder if a certain robot is behind all this...
BTW: If mules are infertile, where do they come from? Do we have to deal with a bunch of sex-fixated donkeys out there, trying to mate with horses whenever they can? On the other hand: most mules are used in rough terrain, like moutains. If I were a horse, I'd probably agree to this as well, rather then living in total celibate. Hell, even as a human... NO! This thought goes to far... =:*)
...mmmmh nothing here about CTO of WB:C onflict/
http://www.job-go.com/Society/Issues/Warfare_and_
will this make it easier to make the mod chips for engines: ie the extra horsepower or higher rpm computer mods that are available for a lot of vehicles
No, since those who are competent already know. I am am afraid of those who are just now thinking of joining the business... Already too much black sheeps out there. Hell, I think the whole car chipmod community consists of black sheeps with a few whites outlaws among them...
This might be controversial but my view point has always been that an engineer needs to be good at math, but using calculators or computers for pure number cruncing is OK. Don't confuse them. As an engineer you need to understand underlying principles, but you are not required to exercise simple craftmanship each time you need something done.
;-)
It's like CAD and drafting. Nowadays (almost) everybody works in 3D, which enables one to do the creative part (concept modeling) without the need to think of the actual drawing part (perspective drafts). Once you model is done, you let the CAD system derive 2D views, to which you attach dimensions etc. This, ladies and gentlemen, was a revolution in engineering. Sure, old guys moaned about the "lost art of drafting", but for the first time en engineer could be creative without the need to bother with technicalities right from the start. Does it mean that every idiot can be an engineer now? Heck, no!
Enter MBS (multi-body systems). For the first time you can simulate dynamics on 3D models without the need for complicated 3D matrix operations or graphical methods. Sure, we lost focus on those methods but that does not mean either, that you can start right away without having a clue of how it works under the hood.
Enter FEM/CFD. There are now packages available that focus on design engineers rather than calculation engineers. Everything is a little less complicated but still truely useful. Guess what, you still need to know how it works and what the best practices are. Or you will get yourself into deep trouble.
Enter packages like MATLAB, Mathematica, MAPLE, MathCAD... Powerful, yet you need to have profound knowledge in math!
See my point? Sure, today's engineers have less knowledge of yesterday's graphical methods for solving kinematics or statical problems. But they have a lot more knowledge of sophisticated calculation types like FEM, CFD, Dynamic Simulation of whatever type. Being an engineer today is more than just being good at producing 2D drafts of the 3D world. All those number-crunching packages free us engineers and give us the time to examine more sophisticated problems. In my mind, we have evolved, rather than degenerated.
My guess about Mr. Robert W. Lucky: He is about 60 years old and deeply frustrated because on the one side he doesn't want to learn those new things (so he declares them unnecessary and distractive) but on the other he is envious of not being young again (and able to play with all these cool toys)...
Guess why I chose that name? I had the chance to review an Aero PDA and it was... well... "hot air". :-)
Yeah, but you can find something stupid in any name. If they had called it "Aero", we would say something about "hot air". Let's see, what the marketing guys will come up with. Maybe "light weight with heavyweight usability"... ;-)
Well, at least they have resisted calling it "i"-something. "iPalm", "iDA", "iMdumb" or whatever...
I see they`ve taken alot from the Sony Clie`s design.
If I may quote the linked article: Yesterday's ZDnet article on this model mentioned that Palm had hired some designers from Sony to help design this model. Some people have misinterpreted this to mean that Sony officially helped Palm design the Tungsten T, which is not the case. A Sony spokesperson confirmed that his company had nothing to do with the design. Palm did hire some designers away from it but Sony wasn't cooperating in any way.
I guess, with yesterday's ZDnet article they meant this one.
On the linked page, there is one discussion around display (excellent on Sony models) vs battery life (where Palm is outstanding). My current Palm V gives me approximately 3 weeks. If I'd get one with crisp color display that has a battery life of at least 2 weeks at normal use, I'd be convinced and rush out to buy one...
(...)I just want to know how they beat the Drakh plague!
Yeah, me too. May be a chance for JMS to put it out as a book? Don't know if he sold the copyright for the story as well or just the script for the TV series...
Well, it's a sad thing to write, but maybe they just make more profit with other series of lower quality? It's like when the Babylon 5 spin-offs where killed... Here's a good statement from JMS about this.
The analogy I can find, is to Fast Food: Low-quality stuff for the masses (but it's practical and I'm enjoying it sometimes). Guaranteed profit. The stuff I consider high-quality, is a matter of taste. So the market is limited and profits not guaranteed. If you would run a restaurant for a living, what would you offer?
Sad, though.
The unfortunate downside to Word--which we have seen in more than one high profile case--is its propensity for keeping invisible records of revisions within a document.
The last thing you want to send out with a draft contract or other legal document is a complete revision history.
OK, but do you really send out Wordfiles? Don't you send out either printed copies or PDF files? I can hardly believe this... Well, even if you need the possibility to edit documents, you can still use Acrobat Exchange. Platform independent and no outdated revisions in the background... as long as you always choose "Save as". Which, btw you could do in Word as well and get rid of "history"...
Nicely put, I cannot agree more. Unfortunately, military budgets are still the biggest black holes in our economies (yes yes, I am aware of this "war as the great inventor" speech... and still refuse to see it as a necessity..... but that might be somewhat OT in this discussion)
...no law without exceptions and additions and... here's the FAQ: http://www.killfile.org/faqs/godwin.html
Well, I cannot agree with you (but do not think that your comment was trollish, either).
Leave ideology to the fundamentalists and let us talk about science. Science has always had a borderline to technology or engineering, which is applied science. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish, but nevertheless, we should make that distinction. IMHO, the urge fore profit comes with appliance of science, not with the original science itself. And yes, it is OK to have that capitalistic element, because it is a great motivator to actually make thinks usable. Academia sometimes has the tendency to produce proof-of-concepts and then jump to a whole different topic, like a child who has enough of it's legos for today and now wants to play a videogame...
If both sides are balanced, the system works. Unfortunately, recently the focus has dramatically shifted towards applied science. The public has somehow been told that all the other stuff going on is just some esotheric nonsense, paid by tax money. Sad...
I agree, that the journal publishers provide nothing more than a peer-mating service and copyediting.
That's why I find it a scandal that they charge that much for a copy. It is not, that they actually have pay to much for, because AFAIK peer-review is done for the fame alone. As I see it, they get copyright on articles, written by tax-funded researchers... and earn quite well on it.
I would be very much on favour for kind of a GPL for research papers. Anyone knows about such tendencies?
(By the way: I always found this link quite useful)
Being a design engineer in the vehicle industry, I can deny with absolute certainty that IT might be overrated. Solid modelling (aka 3D CAD) is standard since mid-90's and other things like PDM is rapidly catching on. Even the smallest of our suppliers seems finally to have understood the need. .com bubble.
On the other hand, you have dynamic simulation, like MBS, opening a completely new field for the engineer: real dynamics instead of just kinematics!
So, the role of IT for the R&D departments in the industry can hardly be overrated! Anybody who is implying this is {insert your favorite noun here}. And since our IT decision makers are all having an engineering degree (or are supervised by ones who have), our budget for IT is steadily increasing (or at least constant on a high level), largely unaffected by the collapse of the
Well, but on the other hand....: The original article was about how daily temperatures (i.e. weather, not climate) are affected by jet exhausts. There temperature data from the past 3.5*10^12 (or even the past 4000) years would certainly distort the picture. Ideally, you would measure this week, stop all airplanes and measure next week again (hopefully with no general weather change in between).
Sorry to dissapoint you, but this is no troll, it's my opinion
OK, I think I might have overreacted reg the "troll". Sorry for this!
However, I think you make a mistake by assuming that you need all the earlier data in order to deliver a clear trend.
IMHO your argument would be more valid (but not 100%, let me come to this later on)... when they would attempt to extrapolate the climate for the next 3.5X10^12 years. But nobody wants to do this, we are talking about the next 100 years or so! Surely, than the temperatures of the last 4000 years should be enough?? You try to extrapolate 100% to 102.5% -- statistically totally valid.
Second point (reg why not 100% after all): The Humans and the process of inductrialisation have influenced the ecosphere quite much, so the data of 100000 years ago (even if available) wouldn't be relevant anymore and just distort the trend.
Well, but IANAS - "I am not a statistician"... lol
I love the "3 days isn't statistically significant" crowd. /. (4 threads only on that "wrong statistics" BS).
100% ack. I am quite ashamed that such stupid discussions happens here on
I don't want to sound elitarian but if one is not a scientist or at least very familiar with the topic and statistics in general, one should just try to STFU^H^H^H^H^H learn by browsing the available resources instead of posting confused comments. As one wrote before: The saddest thing is that these postings got moderated up...
I suspect that any competent statistician would laugh you out of his office if you asked him to attempt to calculate a trend with a sample that small. No sir, ever scientist working on that topic would simply refuse to talk to you other than in a low and calming voice.
There a hundreds of good sites on the internet, try http://www.climate.org/ for an easy starter. Don't forget the Scientific American article. And do some googeling.
As someone who grew up in the former G.D.R.(German Democratic Republic), I think I am allowed to draw a parallel here: The Berlin Wall (here an excellent link for those of you who wants to polish up there German language capabilities) was originally erected in order to protect East Germany from the West (and to retain the people in the Soviet Occupation Zone). The GDR-offiziell term for this perverse building was "Antifascistic Protective Wall"... wink wink, nudge nudge, know whatahmean, say no more?(see).
The bottom line is: While I am quite tempted to see a European Net as a way to protect us Europeans from the sillyness and corruption of the current US government (no offence to you honest US citizens), I cannot see why the European government(s) should be somehow immune against stupidity and corruption... Ultimately, a European Net would be used to imprison us rather than to protect us from the outside world.
I totally agree with you and all the others out there who promote Matlab - a great tool! And all the available toolboxes (like Simulink) certainly don't make it less desirable...
One guy recommended using C++ together with specialised toolboxes... no need for this with Matlab! Sure, if you only need to do something once or twice, the price tag is an obstacle. But in the industry it's often more costly to have an engineer using 2 more weeks on a problem than coughing up the money for a license...
Now they will probably test everyone for this gene along with drugs. Everyone that happens to have this gene won't be able to get a job. Just substitute "crime gene" for Jew, and we have Nazi Germany all over again...
I agree... But remember the recents discussion about the "scientific proof of colored people's inferiority"? Well, there you don't even need a gene test.
Anyway, once again we have scientists who willingly put such arguments into the hands of (potential) fascists...