Of course they are. I didn't mean to imply that they should simply give up research, just that I don't think it should necesarily be expected that new breakthroughs will come at regular, predictable intervals. I certainly don't think that a healthy business model can be based on that happening.
My baby sister was a cancer survivor at the age of 16... that was nearly 15 years ago, and she too would have had a much easier time if treatments available now were available back then. I still remember many of the feelings I had when I learned, so I have a little bit of an idea what your family is going through. My condolences:-(
Oh my god!!! Seriously, are all the old ones becoming obsolete or something? Isn't that where the pharmaceutical companies should be making most of their money? Or is there such a premium on "new" drugs that they can't stay profitable without them? If that is the case, it sounds to me like there are some pretty unsustainable business models out there. You really can't dictate innovation... unless of course, someone starts designing new diseases so you can then trot out the cure to them as a new product...
I just done with a stint teaching Pre-calc at the local community college (now *there's* a tragedy of education in the USA - it is far more worth my time to work for a semi-enjoyable IT job than to continue teaching, which was actually quite satisfying even with all the bureacratic crap that goes with it) where the currect philosophy behind teaching math is to progress from lesser abstraction to higher abstraction. The justification is that this is simply how most people learn these things. Those of us who are "good" at math are able to do this more quickly than the others, but, if taught well, it should be accessible to the majority of students. This is why the emphasis is, at first, on applied math. After all, don't we start with adding apples and combining coinage and the procede to more abstract numbers and arithmetic. There's no reason for this not to continue into all levels of mathematics: go from concrete (application or well-understood abstraction) to more abstract. The skills and logical abstract reasoning develop *because* of the applied mathematics, not *instead* of it.
LoggerNet is actually a fairly useful package of many different applications for use with the Campbell sensor equipment. It's big enough that simply writing your own for linux isn't a particularly practical idea. The OP's comment about using WINE is an intriguing one that, if I were still using Campbell sensors, I might look into. The other limiting factor is the fact that a fair amount of the Campbell internals are proprietary. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to reverse-engineer, but that effort is beyond what most atmospheric scientist have the time/ability to handle. The fact is, LoggerNet works and works pretty well, and it's more cost effective to simply pay Campbell for it and slap it on a windows box(last time I used LoggerNet, a laptop running on a pentium - that's first generation pentium - and windows 95 was enough to handle most of it) that to roll your own.
I sure wish a lot of other people would adopt these habits (I live in the Phoenix, AZ area). My "turn on the headlights" habit is so ingrained in me that I have to make a large conscious effort to *not* turn them on if I don't need it... and even then sometimes I still turn them on...
I think the "current" incarnation of Cray started when they were bought by Tera Computing, whose primary contributions to supercomputing are in massivly multi-threaded computing. Not the wimpy hyperthread that intel has - 128 complete sets of registers per processing unit, data/control flow analysing compilers to automate the extraction of threads from a program, and a huge, proprietary flat (no cache) memory architecture to make sure that the processor always has instructions and data to compute with. I remember seeing Tera at the Supercomputing 1999 conference... and they've likely improved since then.
Caffine is easy. Just replace it with water. A lot of it. You drink enough that you simply don't *want* to put anything else into your stomach. Sure the first week or so will suck when everything seems to be working so sluggishly, and you feel tired, too. But after that, things pick up. I went through this a few years ago. I can still abuse caffine when I need to, but I don't have that pervasive addiction that takes the choice away from me.
If I remember correctly, C has 47 keywords. Everything else is built from them. printf and scanf are not keywords - they're functions built from some character-handling routines(no stings in C, remember?) and the read and write keywords... which is also why you need to put that pesky #include at the top if you want to use them.
I heartily agree. In my final undergrad year, I did a project computing Mie scattering-coefficient from a series definition. Since I was working in C(in retrospect, Fortran may have been better),I ended up writing all the complex number arithmetic routines myself. So, when it came time to actually use these routines to do calculations, I ended up with a mess that looked like: divide(add(multiply(z,add(x,y)),subtract(multiply( z,x),y)) Okay, so that's just a random sampling - the expressions I was using were much, much more involved. It took me about 6 months to track down the fact that I'd put a left paren in the wrong place, and that's why I was getting bogus answers. A set of overloaded operators would have made things so much nicer...
Online journals really are wonderful things - it's so much nicer to read a hard-copied PDF than a bunch of pages photocopied out of the books. That said, the amount of information available in online journals is still very small compared to what is available in the bound journals. I spent a good part of the last year doing research for a master's thesis, and I came out with a much deeper appreciation to just what you can find tucked away in a university library. While it may be true someday, the idea that "books are a thing of the past" ain't true yet.
Is it really correct to keep counting age after it's dead? When was the last time Windows 95 was available to buy? When was the last one someone actually used it(I'mnot counting museums here)?
The way I see it, there are two types of people who get into software development/engineering/programming/whatever: the ones who want to work on computers for the sake of working on computers, and the ones who see computation as a tool for something else. I'd tinkered around with the family Commodore 64 for a while, but it wasn't until I reached high school that I discovered what a joy programming was. The problem was: I could see going to school, getting an appropriate degree(back then, an associate's would probably have been enough), then burning out, because I would have turned something fun into an 8-5 job. So, I went with physics, instead. There I learned of this thing called computational physics... and then I was hooked. You see, you can spend all day working on computers for the sake of working on computers(no offense to the guys who do this and like it - we need what you do - it jut isn't for me), and burning out, but if the computer simply becomes a tool for other tasks... that's different! I have a hard time believing my experiences are all that unique, so it isn't really any surprise that other people have discovered the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't. :-D
Or possibly the one by David A Patterson and John L Hennessy...
Your search - Spongebob Pikachu Porn - did not match any documents
Of course they are. I didn't mean to imply that they should simply give up research, just that I don't think it should necesarily be expected that new breakthroughs will come at regular, predictable intervals. I certainly don't think that a healthy business model can be based on that happening.
My baby sister was a cancer survivor at the age of 16... that was nearly 15 years ago, and she too would have had a much easier time if treatments available now were available back then. I still remember many of the feelings I had when I learned, so I have a little bit of an idea what your family is going through. My condolences :-(
Oh my god!!! Seriously, are all the old ones becoming obsolete or something? Isn't that where the pharmaceutical companies should be making most of their money? Or is there such a premium on "new" drugs that they can't stay profitable without them? If that is the case, it sounds to me like there are some pretty unsustainable business models out there. You really can't dictate innovation... unless of course, someone starts designing new diseases so you can then trot out the cure to them as a new product...
I just done with a stint teaching Pre-calc at the local community college (now *there's* a tragedy of education in the USA - it is far more worth my time to work for a semi-enjoyable IT job than to continue teaching, which was actually quite satisfying even with all the bureacratic crap that goes with it) where the currect philosophy behind teaching math is to progress from lesser abstraction to higher abstraction. The justification is that this is simply how most people learn these things. Those of us who are "good" at math are able to do this more quickly than the others, but, if taught well, it should be accessible to the majority of students. This is why the emphasis is, at first, on applied math. After all, don't we start with adding apples and combining coinage and the procede to more abstract numbers and arithmetic. There's no reason for this not to continue into all levels of mathematics: go from concrete (application or well-understood abstraction) to more abstract. The skills and logical abstract reasoning develop *because* of the applied mathematics, not *instead* of it.
...or you'll see the anchor in my eye
LoggerNet is actually a fairly useful package of many different applications for use with the Campbell sensor equipment. It's big enough that simply writing your own for linux isn't a particularly practical idea. The OP's comment about using WINE is an intriguing one that, if I were still using Campbell sensors, I might look into. The other limiting factor is the fact that a fair amount of the Campbell internals are proprietary. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to reverse-engineer, but that effort is beyond what most atmospheric scientist have the time/ability to handle. The fact is, LoggerNet works and works pretty well, and it's more cost effective to simply pay Campbell for it and slap it on a windows box(last time I used LoggerNet, a laptop running on a pentium - that's first generation pentium - and windows 95 was enough to handle most of it) that to roll your own.
I sure wish a lot of other people would adopt these habits (I live in the Phoenix, AZ area). My "turn on the headlights" habit is so ingrained in me that I have to make a large conscious effort to *not* turn them on if I don't need it... and even then sometimes I still turn them on...
Dang... no mod points... ;-)
Bonus points for using the word "daft"... what a cool word :-)
I think the "current" incarnation of Cray started when they were bought by Tera Computing, whose primary contributions to supercomputing are in massivly multi-threaded computing. Not the wimpy hyperthread that intel has - 128 complete sets of registers per processing unit, data/control flow analysing compilers to automate the extraction of threads from a program, and a huge, proprietary flat (no cache) memory architecture to make sure that the processor always has instructions and data to compute with. I remember seeing Tera at the Supercomputing 1999 conference... and they've likely improved since then.
mmmmm.... Tillamook cheese....
A NSFW tutorial:
http://tmous.com/media/MOUS_kung-fu.html
Caffine is easy. Just replace it with water. A lot of it. You drink enough that you simply don't *want* to put anything else into your stomach. Sure the first week or so will suck when everything seems to be working so sluggishly, and you feel tired, too. But after that, things pick up. I went through this a few years ago. I can still abuse caffine when I need to, but I don't have that pervasive addiction that takes the choice away from me.
If I remember correctly, C has 47 keywords. Everything else is built from them. printf and scanf are not keywords - they're functions built from some character-handling routines(no stings in C, remember?) and the read and write keywords... which is also why you need to put that pesky #include at the top if you want to use them.
I, for one, welcome our short skirt wearing over... oh, wait...
Arizona (most of it) stays on MST year round. I've decided that's one of the best parts of my decision to live here...
Actually, this isn't correct, either (yes, I'm originally Oregonian). "Oregon" has three distinct syllables: OR-eh-gun.
> Probably.
That's the point, isn't it? ;-)
I heartily agree. In my final undergrad year, I did a project computing Mie scattering-coefficient from a series definition. Since I was working in C(in retrospect, Fortran may have been better),I ended up writing all the complex number arithmetic routines myself. So, when it came time to actually use these routines to do calculations, I ended up with a mess that looked like: divide(add(multiply(z,add(x,y)),subtract(multiply( z,x),y)) Okay, so that's just a random sampling - the expressions I was using were much, much more involved. It took me about 6 months to track down the fact that I'd put a left paren in the wrong place, and that's why I was getting bogus answers. A set of overloaded operators would have made things so much nicer...
Wow... ask a question and get intelligent answers... I'm not used to that... I'm not quite sure how to respond... "Thank you" I suppose is a start ;-)
Online journals really are wonderful things - it's so much nicer to read a hard-copied PDF than a bunch of pages photocopied out of the books. That said, the amount of information available in online journals is still very small compared to what is available in the bound journals. I spent a good part of the last year doing research for a master's thesis, and I came out with a much deeper appreciation to just what you can find tucked away in a university library. While it may be true someday, the idea that "books are a thing of the past" ain't true yet.
Is it really correct to keep counting age after it's dead? When was the last time Windows 95 was available to buy? When was the last one someone actually used it(I'mnot counting museums here)?
The way I see it, there are two types of people who get into software development/engineering/programming/whatever: the ones who want to work on computers for the sake of working on computers, and the ones who see computation as a tool for something else. I'd tinkered around with the family Commodore 64 for a while, but it wasn't until I reached high school that I discovered what a joy programming was. The problem was: I could see going to school, getting an appropriate degree(back then, an associate's would probably have been enough), then burning out, because I would have turned something fun into an 8-5 job. So, I went with physics, instead. There I learned of this thing called computational physics... and then I was hooked. You see, you can spend all day working on computers for the sake of working on computers(no offense to the guys who do this and like it - we need what you do - it jut isn't for me), and burning out, but if the computer simply becomes a tool for other tasks... that's different! I have a hard time believing my experiences are all that unique, so it isn't really any surprise that other people have discovered the same thing.