At the turn of the century, most nations in Europe made alliances with each other that if one of them were attacked, their ally would step in to defend them.
because the authority in question feels they need a conviction to justify their investigation.
If "authorities" are so fragile that they cannot admit that they made a mistake (or at least apologize and move on, mumbling something about "we had to be sure") there's a real problem.
Perhaps admitting error is a sign of weakness to some people. To me it's a sign of strength and character.
Wearing blinking lights attached to a strange-looking device to an airport as a publicity stunt for an art project is another thing...
New versions of Microsoft Windows seem to have the purpose of 1) killing the old version and 2) using more CPU power so that it is necessary to buy new hardware.
When an OS becomes "good enough" and people have learned to live with and work around the shortcomings, why upgrade? To provide software developers with jobs?
Automation of boring administrative tasks/ease of communication has gotten about as good as it can get.
This was an attention-getting move designed to promote her "art". Morons like this we do not need.
As an aside, I flew into and out of Seattle from Canada last week. No problems, very little wait time for customs and no jerkish/stupid behaviour from flyers or security. Where do these air travel horror stories come from anyway? People that feel the need to draw attention to themselves and then get indignant or offended?
Cable TV companies in Canada offer a-la-carte programming. When I was living in Montreal and subscribed to Videotron digital TV I was paying ~$35/month and got all the channels I wanted for that price. No HD, no pay channels (although on demand was available).
This is such a sad development for the indoctrination of new students. So much history used to exist for newcomers in the long-respected tradition of sticking gum to the underside of desks. "New World Order" indeed. Puck Yoy!
While I think that most people driving massive vehicles for personal transportation do so for reasons other than practicality, if you drive/ride a smaller machine it's YOUR job to be safe, not everyone else's. You have to be nimble, fully aware of your surroundings (look well ahead, behind and to the sides) and anticipate others' actions. This is valid advice whether neighbouring traffic weighs 4000 lbs or 150 lbs.
If you're automatically generating the drawing, shouldn't you be automatically generating the notes too? Would it make sense to specify the notes in whatever source you generated the drawing from?
We do do that in the modeling program (which runs on top of ACAD) but apparently something gets lost in the translation to the software that does the actual detail drawings. Then again, perhaps some software is not properly tweaked to enable this and I've enlisted the help of the office's new CAD guru to find a solution. We'll see if it gets fixed or back-burnered. Remember that smoothly-running customized software is not always desirable to some (laid-off support people, can no longer claim, "my software ate my drawing!", etc.)...
Do you mean making a separate subview on the layout?
No, I mean enlarging the individual elements themselves within the printed drawing. Obviously there's a scale factor variable somewhere, but apparently it's not easy to modify or cannot be selectively applied where needed.
This is part of why I like constraint-based CAD (such as in SolidEdge): since it makes dimensioning an important part of the process, it's a lot less onerous than in something like AutoCAD.
Are the restraints applied while doing 3D modeling or in the 2D fabrication drawing output created by the modeling software?
The software that seems to be causing the headaches is Isogen, which was recently purchased by Intergraph. Intergraph competes with piping design software running on AutoCAD (in a convoluted way) and Isogen is used by virtually all piping software to automatically generate piping isometric drawings.
In my experience: adding notes to an automatically-generated drawing, enlarging details that the software draws too small to be legible, re-arranging leader and dimension lines that cross each other (and make the drawing nearly impossible to read), and other frustrations that I can't remember at the moment.
Obviously, the validation software looks for hardware configurations, dontcha think? These days most CAD in mid/large-sized places is run over a LAN with a limited number of licenses on the server; sometimes legitimate users can't run the software because too many people are already signed-on. This gives the software makers a LOT of control. Don't even get me started on the notion of who owns engineering data when it comes to proprietary CAD file formats...
Autodesk became as big as it is because for many years they turned a blind eye to people copying their software. More "unofficial" users playing with AutoCAD meant more marketshare later because CAD tends to be fairly complicated to learn and use effectively. Built-in familiarity with the interface and basic features also helped a lot - "I can draw stuff with AutoCAD, therefore I am a draftsman"-type qualifications.
Some people simply do not need to upgrade to or buy the latest, greatest version of software (unless they are forced to due to license expiration or having to stay compatible with customers).
I seem to recall that Autodesk tried a subscription model at one time but it didn't work out as they liked, as users didn't want to be caught in a "ransom"-type situation whereby they'd be forced to make payments without any guarantees of later software improvements. Engineers tend to be a practical lot.
As with all software, there comes a point when good enough is good enough. A lot of new software releases these days (at least in some industries) seem to be mostly sizzle and little steak.
I use AutoCAD 2005 daily as a platform for 3rd-party 3D plant design software. It's good enough, and switching to a newer version would likely break the way I do things now. Even these days with quite powerful computers (ACAD R14 on a 486DX was the first truly useful Windows-based AutoCAD, IMO) there are still things that cannot be done, so drawings have to be manually edited. As soon as you manually edit a deliverable you've lost the advantage of automatic extraction of detailed fabrication drawings and you end up with a hybrid document that can easily turn into a time bomb (so to speak) in the field.
After all this rambling I guess my point is that ever-increasing complexity (and the associated cost, of course) in software can be more trouble than it's worth unless designs can be output directly to a machine or robot to build the thing you're imagining. If your work involves actual human beings constructing things in an outdoor environment, 2D drawings are still needed. Ergo, 2D CAD is often good enough and I don't see why selling obsolete (but still useful), paid-for copies of software should be not permitted. Hell, monitoring sales could be a great indicator of what the market actually wants, rather than foisting the next upgrade on everyone.
One of the problems with being "very smart" is that explaining yourself to the dumber people becomes impossible. And I know what you're thinking now: "this pipingguy thinks he's real smart. What an asshole, what he wrote didn't make any sense."
I admit that you might have a point in that flashing and garishly-coloured thingies on webpages are almost always obviously advertising. But Google's interface is clean, efficient and lightweight in page size. The link you refer to (they surveyed a whopping 2000 people for their conclusions) is from a publication that supports the advertising industry; should it come as a surprise that they don't like Google's approach?
Your link also says, "The poll found Google users are the most likely to know the difference compared to other search engines. For instance, while 54 percent of Google users said they understood the ad system, 42 percent of Yahoo users and 36 percent of MSN searchers did."
Answering your question: Google could use a different font, stop using weasily words like "sponsored" instead of "advertising", use more prominent colors, use more prominent boxes, use explanatory phrases like "these links are paid advertisements", even put ad's on a separate page.
Huh? If people are too dumb to be able to tell the difference between "sponsored" links and relevant sites returned from a search inquiry, then maybe they should ask someone else to find things for them. Google's ads are pretty unintrusive but clearly marked - should they be blinking so people notice them more as advertising?
Slashdot Mirror
At the turn of the century, most nations in Europe made alliances with each other that if one of them were attacked, their ally would step in to defend them.
Sounds like NATO.
to say nothing of global climate change, which threatens to be a bigger threat than all of the above.
You put "global climate change" in the same sentence as the other, actually important stuff?
Dave did such a great job in the SpongeBob movie that they called him back. Eventually.
because the authority in question feels they need a conviction to justify their investigation.
If "authorities" are so fragile that they cannot admit that they made a mistake (or at least apologize and move on, mumbling something about "we had to be sure") there's a real problem.
Perhaps admitting error is a sign of weakness to some people. To me it's a sign of strength and character.
Wearing blinking lights attached to a strange-looking device to an airport as a publicity stunt for an art project is another thing...
Go back to the 1950's and the difference between the CEO and the janitor's salary was a hell of a lot smaller.
Seems to me that there were a lot FEWER "executives" then also, perhaps I am wrong.
New versions of Microsoft Windows seem to have the purpose of 1) killing the old version and 2) using more CPU power so that it is necessary to buy new hardware.
When an OS becomes "good enough" and people have learned to live with and work around the shortcomings, why upgrade? To provide software developers with jobs?
Automation of boring administrative tasks/ease of communication has gotten about as good as it can get.
wasn't exactly the smartest move
This was an attention-getting move designed to promote her "art". Morons like this we do not need.
As an aside, I flew into and out of Seattle from Canada last week. No problems, very little wait time for customs and no jerkish/stupid behaviour from flyers or security. Where do these air travel horror stories come from anyway? People that feel the need to draw attention to themselves and then get indignant or offended?
Cable TV companies in Canada offer a-la-carte programming. When I was living in Montreal and subscribed to Videotron digital TV I was paying ~$35/month and got all the channels I wanted for that price. No HD, no pay channels (although on demand was available).
New USA map
This is such a sad development for the indoctrination of new students. So much history used to exist for newcomers in the long-respected tradition of sticking gum to the underside of desks. "New World Order" indeed. Puck Yoy!
Please explain this "paper" and "pencil" you speak of. Is it some kind of new software combo? Does it run on Linux?
Sincerely,
The Ultimate Tool
American's are not the only ones with long ballots.
Perhaps it's an attention span issue.
While I think that most people driving massive vehicles for personal transportation do so for reasons other than practicality, if you drive/ride a smaller machine it's YOUR job to be safe, not everyone else's. You have to be nimble, fully aware of your surroundings (look well ahead, behind and to the sides) and anticipate others' actions. This is valid advice whether neighbouring traffic weighs 4000 lbs or 150 lbs.
If you're automatically generating the drawing, shouldn't you be automatically generating the notes too? Would it make sense to specify the notes in whatever source you generated the drawing from?
We do do that in the modeling program (which runs on top of ACAD) but apparently something gets lost in the translation to the software that does the actual detail drawings. Then again, perhaps some software is not properly tweaked to enable this and I've enlisted the help of the office's new CAD guru to find a solution. We'll see if it gets fixed or back-burnered. Remember that smoothly-running customized software is not always desirable to some (laid-off support people, can no longer claim, "my software ate my drawing!", etc.)...
Do you mean making a separate subview on the layout?
No, I mean enlarging the individual elements themselves within the printed drawing. Obviously there's a scale factor variable somewhere, but apparently it's not easy to modify or cannot be selectively applied where needed.
This is part of why I like constraint-based CAD (such as in SolidEdge): since it makes dimensioning an important part of the process, it's a lot less onerous than in something like AutoCAD.
Are the restraints applied while doing 3D modeling or in the 2D fabrication drawing output created by the modeling software?
The software that seems to be causing the headaches is Isogen, which was recently purchased by Intergraph. Intergraph competes with piping design software running on AutoCAD (in a convoluted way) and Isogen is used by virtually all piping software to automatically generate piping isometric drawings.
In my experience: adding notes to an automatically-generated drawing, enlarging details that the software draws too small to be legible, re-arranging leader and dimension lines that cross each other (and make the drawing nearly impossible to read), and other frustrations that I can't remember at the moment.
Doesn't Autodesk also own Alias?
Obviously, the validation software looks for hardware configurations, dontcha think? These days most CAD in mid/large-sized places is run over a LAN with a limited number of licenses on the server; sometimes legitimate users can't run the software because too many people are already signed-on. This gives the software makers a LOT of control. Don't even get me started on the notion of who owns engineering data when it comes to proprietary CAD file formats...
Autodesk became as big as it is because for many years they turned a blind eye to people copying their software. More "unofficial" users playing with AutoCAD meant more marketshare later because CAD tends to be fairly complicated to learn and use effectively. Built-in familiarity with the interface and basic features also helped a lot - "I can draw stuff with AutoCAD, therefore I am a draftsman"-type qualifications.
Some people simply do not need to upgrade to or buy the latest, greatest version of software (unless they are forced to due to license expiration or having to stay compatible with customers).
I seem to recall that Autodesk tried a subscription model at one time but it didn't work out as they liked, as users didn't want to be caught in a "ransom"-type situation whereby they'd be forced to make payments without any guarantees of later software improvements. Engineers tend to be a practical lot.
As with all software, there comes a point when good enough is good enough. A lot of new software releases these days (at least in some industries) seem to be mostly sizzle and little steak.
I use AutoCAD 2005 daily as a platform for 3rd-party 3D plant design software. It's good enough, and switching to a newer version would likely break the way I do things now. Even these days with quite powerful computers (ACAD R14 on a 486DX was the first truly useful Windows-based AutoCAD, IMO) there are still things that cannot be done, so drawings have to be manually edited. As soon as you manually edit a deliverable you've lost the advantage of automatic extraction of detailed fabrication drawings and you end up with a hybrid document that can easily turn into a time bomb (so to speak) in the field.
After all this rambling I guess my point is that ever-increasing complexity (and the associated cost, of course) in software can be more trouble than it's worth unless designs can be output directly to a machine or robot to build the thing you're imagining. If your work involves actual human beings constructing things in an outdoor environment, 2D drawings are still needed. Ergo, 2D CAD is often good enough and I don't see why selling obsolete (but still useful), paid-for copies of software should be not permitted. Hell, monitoring sales could be a great indicator of what the market actually wants, rather than foisting the next upgrade on everyone.
I just want to know what a klingongram is; a measure of mass or a method of communication.
Usually it's 14.7 psig (0 psia) @ 70 degrees F.
there is a tremendous drive for primated (most mammals) to take as much as they can possibly get away with
I'd have replied sooner (and I'm typing this slowly) but I can't get my other hand out of this damn jar.
Very smart people...
One of the problems with being "very smart" is that explaining yourself to the dumber people becomes impossible. And I know what you're thinking now: "this pipingguy thinks he's real smart. What an asshole, what he wrote didn't make any sense."
See what I mean?
Nice sig.
I admit that you might have a point in that flashing and garishly-coloured thingies on webpages are almost always obviously advertising. But Google's interface is clean, efficient and lightweight in page size. The link you refer to (they surveyed a whopping 2000 people for their conclusions) is from a publication that supports the advertising industry; should it come as a surprise that they don't like Google's approach?
Your link also says, "The poll found Google users are the most likely to know the difference compared to other search engines. For instance, while 54 percent of Google users said they understood the ad system, 42 percent of Yahoo users and 36 percent of MSN searchers did."
Answering your question: Google could use a different font, stop using weasily words like "sponsored" instead of "advertising", use more prominent colors, use more prominent boxes, use explanatory phrases like "these links are paid advertisements", even put ad's on a separate page.
Huh? If people are too dumb to be able to tell the difference between "sponsored" links and relevant sites returned from a search inquiry, then maybe they should ask someone else to find things for them. Google's ads are pretty unintrusive but clearly marked - should they be blinking so people notice them more as advertising?