Bullshit. US military doctrine is built on soldiers who are flexible, able, and motivated.
You don't have a clue. US military doctrine is built on soldiers who are robots and do not think. The US Armys training is an international joke. Your soldiers are given assault rifles that do not fire fully-automatic because they are deemed inadequetly trained to be responsible for managing their ammo, ffs.
Any standard soldier in pretty much any other first world nation army is trained to the equivalant of your special forces. Christ, Canadian Militia units aka weekend warriors go over to train with your soldiers and mop the floor with them on excercise.
US military doctrine is based on skimping on training, spending more on weapons, and having lots and lots more soldiers. It appears to work.
Some people actually want to commit suicide a quiet way. I had a deep depression last winter and actively looked for such info but could not find some.
Carbon Monoxide poisoning is painless. Carbon Monoxide comes from any engine. If you don't have a car and a hose, you could always try a whippersnipper in your bedroom with the doors closed.
You could also try a pan of Ethylene Glycol (Antifreeze) on a hotplate while you're taking a nap... that would be even less noisy I suppose.
Mod parent up
If it's on a public website and not secured, it's not hacking.
If I put a bunch of sensitive static documents on my website where anyone can read them and you do, how am I supposed to claim you hacked me?
Fact is, they didn't hack the site by hijacking someone elses id, or they wouldn't have been restricted to their own letter. It was available to them with their own access rights. Which means it wasn't secured and was on a public webserver.
This sort of thing was good enough for the Republicans, you'd think it would be good enough for Harvard:P
Personally, I don't even think there's anything wrong with it. Wow, they found out if they were accepted to the school. Who gives a shit? The school should be notifying everyone as quickly as they're able anyway so they can get on with planning their life.
And they're all going to be unethical by the time Harvard is done with em anyway.:)
Only an idiot would think that the DEGREE itself greatly matters; it's the things you learn (or do not learn) while earning it that do. Stop fighting straw-men, mr. self-made consultant man.
As far as education goes, what you learn matters. But the original poster asked what he should do for his career. And as far as that goes, I've advised him that it's what you've done is what matters. You're putting forth an opinion, as far as I'm concerned an erronious one, that he can further his career equally well going into formal education or going to work. And having a dig at me while you're at it.
And your reading skills are seriously lacking. You didn't even bother trying to grasp what I said. I specifically said that ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE TO LEARN THESE THINGS, FEW DO. You apparently did. Does not contradict my point at the slightest.
Your point is irrelevant. Lots of people go to school and fail too. Lots of people get jobs and then fuck the dog and let the union keep them employeed. But if someone asks for advice on how to further their career, you don't tell them "Don't do this, it would be the most effective option if you show inititive, but most people don't, so don't bother with it. Just go back to school in this field. No, that probably won't do much help you, just put off biting the bullet a few more years, but sheep do well there and most people are sheep."
Consider two applicants applying for a job, say it's a combination of DBA work and internal application development in the natural gas industry.
1) I've got a Masters in Computer Science. I've also got a Bachelor of Science with a major in Chemistry. I'm a smart guy, and am confident that I can do this job.
or
2) I've done this before. While working for XYZ Construction, I was a DBA and built several internal apps using technology X, which i understand you use. I did information gathering from various departments, helped them determine precisely what they needed, improved the efficiency of their database significantly allowing their employees to operate more effectively, and built a half-dozen custom apps which are being used right this moment by x people on a daily basis. No, I don't have an education, but if you wanna ask these guys at XYZ, they'll back up what I've told you.
Who would you hire to fix your problem? I know who most would hire, and it's not the guy who spend years expanding their horizons in school.
Now, getting that experience means getting in on the ground floor and taking on every task you can so they don't give it to someone else. And more degrees isn't going to help you do that. You're more likely to get the "overqualified and plans to take off in no time flat" card played on you than anything else if you try.
If this guy wants to go back for more school, more power to him. It's not the most effective means to progress his career though. The decision should be made solely on what he's interested in learning about and working with in the future. He will be able to leverage it, never said that he wouldn't. Just that it's not the choice to make if your career is your priority.
No one likes being lied to, but if it does happen, the socially efficient solution is either voting with your wallet, or with your feet (as you say, amongst other grandious silliness), or at most a private claim for damages based on a breach of explicit or implied contract. Inviting government oversight of even the most tenuous implied contract is a recipe for statist disaster.
Might I suggest that you only formed this opinion because you live in a society where the ability to lie effectively is a socially rewarded behavior?
I don't imagine someone who moved to your country from another that doesn't accept this kind of thing would agree. They'd probably flounder around trying to get accurate information that doesn't exist, whereas someone from a "liar-culture" would just accept that they are not able to be accurately informed and choose in ignorance.
Oh, and the "silliness" of voting with your feet is a lot less silly when you're not a native of the country in the first place. And the US in particular NEEDS immigration to prevent a social collapse.
Actually, while experience is very valuable, I'd rather not hire a programmer that has no college education. Although it is possible to learn everything CS degrees teach without attending actual school, very few people do that. It's just more efficient to learn that as part of a degree -- although you have to learn quite a bit more than what you will eventually need, you never know which parts are things you do NOT need. Without knowing at least something about compiler theory, relational model, discrete maths, data structure basics, algorithms etc., you aren't much of a software developer; no matter how much experience you have doing more trivial programming.
At least in CS it's simple: like they say, simple problems were all solved in 60s (if not 50s). If you do not learn what the great minds learnt/invented/solved (but rather go and solve them by trial and error... or worse, never learn them!), you are just colossaly wasting your time. Either you are ignorant of useful techniques, or you have used awfully lots of time reinventing the wheel.
However, after learning enough (B.Sc, or maybe M.Sc... depends on kinds of things you are working on), I certainly agree one has to go out and use the knowledge. Going for higher degrees without intervening real-world experience is as silly as ignoring 'formal' CS theory altogether.
See, that all sounds good.
But the fact is, once you get into the market, your stupid piece of paper isn't worth shit. It puts you one up on the guy who has neither experience nor education, and that's not enough.
I've got a rinky-dink piece of paper from a school that no longer exists. Took me 8 months to get, wasn't worth shit, wasted a lot of money, haven't used anything that I learned in there since I got out. But not knowing any better, I got it. When I went and got my first job in IT, they didn't even give a shit about my school; nothing I had learned there was relevant. I showed them I was confident, ambitious and willing to learn, and off I went.
Fast forward 5 years. I'm not yet 30, a consultant, make more than my father, do lead development work for fortune 500 companies, and have regularly had to teach ignoramuses with CS degrees how to do their jobs. I have no degree, but I've got a very large bookshelf full of worn texts I've read back to front a dozen times and numerous large, successful projects under my belt. Know where the majority of the people I know with CS degrees work? They're telemarketers for HP.
So you can talk about how "silly" ignoring "formal" CS theory is. Doesn't phase me. Why? Because I've made my career proving you wrong, and I'm not even near my peak.
I'll take my page out of the books of Job and Woz, thanks.
Most people that hold MBA's aren't worth the paper their MBA's are printed on...
As opposed to those with a CS degree?
You've wasted enough of your life in school. Go DO stuff. How many years did you spend not making shit income in school and how much money did you spend to be there? Imagine what you could have done with that time if you'd gotten a computer, some books, and gone about making shit happen?
Education is what employers settle for when they can't get their hands on someone with experience. Stop wasting your life and go get started.
Getting into space is more complex than flying an airplane up to 63 miles and jumping out. To go into orbit you need to achieve a speed of about Mach 25 (Spaceship 1 was nowhere even close to orbital velocity). Rocket technologies today make sense in accomplishing this by minimizing the weight of the spacecraft and maximizing the weight of the fuel. To do what you want would require that almost all of the fuel and useful spacecraft are carried in an aircraft to perhaps 100,000 feet. The fuel to do so would be enormous and you would still have to fire the rocket to get the other Mach 24 or so. The complex airoframe required to pull this off would probably require a significantly larger amount of fuel that is used today. The losses a rocket has from atmospheric drag at high velocities (up to about 100,000 feet to be equivalent) would be vastly smaller than the fuel required to launch a standard airplane assisted rocket launch.
On a side note, a scramjet may be useful in the future due to its small engine size (extremely few parts). In this scenario a rocket would launch from the ground up to Mach 1, the scramjet would accelerate up to Mach 15, and then another rocket would accelarate up to Mach 25 for orbit or escape. Considering that no space launch has ever used a scramjet, I don't think its fair to call existing technologies 'dumb'. But then again, when has anyone considered 'rocket scientist' to be a synonymn for 'intelligent engineer'?
I can think of a number of advantages.
The first is that you don't have to plow through the atmosphere. Air pressure increases with speed and decreases with density as you rise, which means that the shuttles have to throttle back their speed until they are high in the atmosphere to avoid having the shuttle come apart. Then they accelerate as fast as possible. This point is called max q. (q=dynamic pressure) Basically your shuttle is idling along until it reaches this height. If you take the craft up to this height first using a plane instead of a booster, you're avoiding a tremendous amount of fuel wasting drag and are able to dramatically increase your thrust to weight ratio, increasing efficiency.
The second major advantage is that you don't need to use liquid oxygen until you launch your rocket from the "booster plane". You can just use atmospheric oxygen. There is a tremendous weight (and thus fuel) savings right there.
I'm going to quote someone more educated in this than myself for my third point: ...and this might be the best reason, is due to launch site azimuth restrictions. Currently, if designers want to place a spacecraft into orbit, they must hope that they can reach an orbit allowed by the azimuths permitted from a given launch site. (For example, Kennedy Space Center can launch to 29 - 57 degrees inclination.) If designers want to attain other inclinations, the must force the launch vehicle to perform doglegs, carry on-board propellant for plane changes, or choose a different launch site. By launching from an airbreathing vehicle, the launch platform can basically attain any inclination desired and avoid population centers. Allowing a spacecraft to direct inject to a desired inclination would either save major amounts of mass or allow much larger, more capable spacecraft.
Now, you may not consider existing technologies "dumb", but anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that they couldn't find a more inefficient method of getting that thing to the edge of the atmosphere if they tried. They've been running with the same design for how long now? This stuff was obvious to me when I was 15 years old! What were they waiting for?
They've got an absolutely retarded budget, and are "supposed" to be among our very best and brightest. But the way things are looking, I'd say there's a better chance of a video game designer getting this technology working than NASA. Not that John isn't a demonstratedly brilliant man, but still, there's somethin
I doubt that private enterprise would be stupid enough to build a shuttle. Burning fuel to carry all that weight to the edge of the atmosphere when you can fly it to the edge of the sky and launch it from there is pretty dumb...
You can't remove a selection of objects instead of an individual object that way. And it's a lot harder to accurately grab the edges of small objects in a gesture.
Navigating the context menu is a bit of a pain in the ass, I will agree... what would be nice is if there was a keyboard shortcut for the Remove X menu item so you could just select the junk, right click, keypress and you're done without moving the mouse.
PHP lets you do that, but you have to progam it. Page date? Sure. Put in a URL parameter for "recordstart=" and "numofrecords=". Sort by a column? Sure, put in a parameter for "col=" and "sortorder=" - there are a hundred ways to do it. Then in your PHP code you read those parameters and craft a SQL query to do the deed.
Sounds fine, right?
ASP.NET developes can do that with literally two clicks and setting a property or maybe two. Then you create a stored procedure for your query (abstracting out that phase), and your users can sort by any column, page with user-definable page lengths - without generating a new query to the server (whereas your PHP example probably generates a query on every page request). If the user has a new-ish browser he/she can resort without another page load, as well as probably re-size the number of records on page. If the user is on an older browser or one without javascript enabled the script automatically detects this and serves a static copy, much like the one you generated with PHP.
You are so totally talking out of your ass.
The DataGrid control which you are referring to allows you to implement default paging and sorting or custom paging and sorting.
But when you use default paging and sorting, the query pulls ALL the sorted data from the database tier to the web tier, then cuts out the stuff that's not relevant to the page. Every time you page, you're pulling ALL the data from the database. Every time you change the sort order, you're pulling ALL the data from the database. This is completely USELESS as in broken for ANYTHING except small tables. And if you're not using the DataGrid, you get nothing.
So when you go about impementing custom paging, which you WILL need to do, it becomes MORE work than under classic ASP.
You know how you do paging properly in ASP.NET? You skip those stupid fucking useless controls, you write your paging and sorting into your stored procedure where it fucking belongs and you use a DataReader control to fetch your data in firehose mode.
Just like you should have been doing in ASP all along.
What is unprofessional about taking the time to research a person, examine their body of work and questioning them about it before you hire them? You do the same to them before you apply, don't you? I know I do.
My understanding was that it has nothing to do with re-hiring someone else...
As far as I know, "laying off" someone in Canada just boils down to giving them a severance package (which can be several weeks'/months' pay, depending on how long they've worked there, among other thing). When you fire someone with cause, you don't have to pay them for anything more than what they've already earned.
You're mistaken. If you get laid off or your employer goes out of business in Canada, you qualify for your unemployment insurance. If you get fired or quit, you don't. It's a big deal.
If those restrictions didn't exist, people could game the system. An example might be a company that lays off all their staff, hires other staff, then lays off that staff and hires the original staff. Rinse, repeat, and you've got people able to work 6 months a year and then continue to get paid unemployment insurance until that runs out. I'm not sure how long that would be, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Aside from that, it would allow all sorts of exploitation of workers if you could just fire anyone you wanted without cause. The amount of sexual harassment you could get away with if you could just fire anyone you wanted any time without any justification, for example.
I can certainly see the perspective of the employers who don't like the loss of personal freedom, and could be "stuck" keeping on paying someone they'd rather replace if the person hasn't given them just cause for firing. That said, the reality of the world right now is that most people aren't working for individuals anymore anyways, they're working for corporations. Which means the individual "stuck" with them isn't losing any freedom or having any financial obligation placed on them personally, they're just doing their jobs.
Sounds like a great victory for those who intend to wear one, but actually the opposite is true, because every employee who wants to avoid such behavior will simply not hire any women being muslim anymore.
Sounds like a pretty sure fire way to end up in jail to me.
I believe this extends to private companies in Canada. Unless they have due cause, they can't just fire you. They can lay you off because they don't need you anymore, but if they're caught re-hiring someone with your skill set in the immediate future after laying you off, they're fucked.
You see a lot of jobs up here that are just under 35 hours a week up here, because part-time employees don't recieve the same protections. Instead of 3 employees working full time, you hire 4 to work 30 hrs a week and you can screw them over to your hearts content.
No, he means that OpenBSD is on the recovery from a virus picked up while sharing source. The recovery has been attributed to the high quality of the Canadian bud it has been smoking.
Someone told me that Americans think bud comes in a can... is that true?
Telcoms will be able to do wireless far more efficiently. That's what these people understand. The fact that govts are even considering muni WiFi just shows how inefficient govt is when WiMax is right around the corner. These local govts. wouldn't understand a link budget if it punched them in the face.
If you're right, the municipalities can hire them to do the work for them. If the municipalities are able to do it more effectively on their own than by hiring a telco, that telco doesn't deserve to be in business.
You think making it illegal for your customers to do it themselves so they'll continue to hire you to do it is the answer?
I'm specifically against government-sponsored WiFi because it's a much more specialized market. Everyone who works uses roads--if they don't drive on them, they ride on them (the special cases where people work at home aside.) Even people who don't use roads to get to work tend to use them to get to the market, even if it's just walking across a street or two.
WiFi is a much more specialized. I have to have a computer of some sort in order to use it. Nothing I was born with allows me to naturally take advantage of this service. In fact, what we'll see is either a tax on computers being used to pay for the WiFi service (fair, but I'd rather pay for my own wired broadband if possible) or we'll see people who have no way of using the service (the poor who can't afford personal computers) paying for the rich who can. In general, I'm against such taxes, but that's probably how it will end up as any installation of this size will require significant maintenance which means a continual source of revenue.
Sounds a lot like telephones. You've got to have a phone to use it. People without a special use don't need it, they all live next to their family and friends anyways.
And television too. If you don't have a television, your're not going to get to see these "pictures that fly through the air" anyways.
And what the hell is with these roads? I can walk everywhere I need to go. I'm not paying for them, let the guys pulling carts full of crops to market pay for that.
Good thing we never let the government get involved in them.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. US military doctrine is built on soldiers who are flexible, able, and motivated.
You don't have a clue. US military doctrine is built on soldiers who are robots and do not think. The US Armys training is an international joke. Your soldiers are given assault rifles that do not fire fully-automatic because they are deemed inadequetly trained to be responsible for managing their ammo, ffs.
Any standard soldier in pretty much any other first world nation army is trained to the equivalant of your special forces. Christ, Canadian Militia units aka weekend warriors go over to train with your soldiers and mop the floor with them on excercise.
US military doctrine is based on skimping on training, spending more on weapons, and having lots and lots more soldiers. It appears to work.
Some people actually want to commit suicide a quiet way. I had a deep depression last winter and actively looked for such info but could not find some.
Carbon Monoxide poisoning is painless. Carbon Monoxide comes from any engine. If you don't have a car and a hose, you could always try a whippersnipper in your bedroom with the doors closed.
You could also try a pan of Ethylene Glycol (Antifreeze) on a hotplate while you're taking a nap... that would be even less noisy I suppose.
Maybe Allah really DOES hate the Americans!
Mod parent up If it's on a public website and not secured, it's not hacking. If I put a bunch of sensitive static documents on my website where anyone can read them and you do, how am I supposed to claim you hacked me? Fact is, they didn't hack the site by hijacking someone elses id, or they wouldn't have been restricted to their own letter. It was available to them with their own access rights. Which means it wasn't secured and was on a public webserver. This sort of thing was good enough for the Republicans, you'd think it would be good enough for Harvard :P
Personally, I don't even think there's anything wrong with it. Wow, they found out if they were accepted to the school. Who gives a shit? The school should be notifying everyone as quickly as they're able anyway so they can get on with planning their life.
And they're all going to be unethical by the time Harvard is done with em anyway. :)
Only an idiot would think that the DEGREE itself greatly matters; it's the things you learn (or do not learn) while earning it that do. Stop fighting straw-men, mr. self-made consultant man.
As far as education goes, what you learn matters. But the original poster asked what he should do for his career. And as far as that goes, I've advised him that it's what you've done is what matters. You're putting forth an opinion, as far as I'm concerned an erronious one, that he can further his career equally well going into formal education or going to work. And having a dig at me while you're at it.
And your reading skills are seriously lacking. You didn't even bother trying to grasp what I said. I specifically said that ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE TO LEARN THESE THINGS, FEW DO. You apparently did. Does not contradict my point at the slightest.
Your point is irrelevant. Lots of people go to school and fail too. Lots of people get jobs and then fuck the dog and let the union keep them employeed. But if someone asks for advice on how to further their career, you don't tell them "Don't do this, it would be the most effective option if you show inititive, but most people don't, so don't bother with it. Just go back to school in this field. No, that probably won't do much help you, just put off biting the bullet a few more years, but sheep do well there and most people are sheep."
Consider two applicants applying for a job, say it's a combination of DBA work and internal application development in the natural gas industry.
1) I've got a Masters in Computer Science. I've also got a Bachelor of Science with a major in Chemistry. I'm a smart guy, and am confident that I can do this job.
or
2) I've done this before. While working for XYZ Construction, I was a DBA and built several internal apps using technology X, which i understand you use. I did information gathering from various departments, helped them determine precisely what they needed, improved the efficiency of their database significantly allowing their employees to operate more effectively, and built a half-dozen custom apps which are being used right this moment by x people on a daily basis. No, I don't have an education, but if you wanna ask these guys at XYZ, they'll back up what I've told you.
Who would you hire to fix your problem? I know who most would hire, and it's not the guy who spend years expanding their horizons in school.
Now, getting that experience means getting in on the ground floor and taking on every task you can so they don't give it to someone else. And more degrees isn't going to help you do that. You're more likely to get the "overqualified and plans to take off in no time flat" card played on you than anything else if you try.
If this guy wants to go back for more school, more power to him. It's not the most effective means to progress his career though. The decision should be made solely on what he's interested in learning about and working with in the future. He will be able to leverage it, never said that he wouldn't. Just that it's not the choice to make if your career is your priority.
No one likes being lied to, but if it does happen, the socially efficient solution is either voting with your wallet, or with your feet (as you say, amongst other grandious silliness), or at most a private claim for damages based on a breach of explicit or implied contract. Inviting government oversight of even the most tenuous implied contract is a recipe for statist disaster.
Might I suggest that you only formed this opinion because you live in a society where the ability to lie effectively is a socially rewarded behavior?
I don't imagine someone who moved to your country from another that doesn't accept this kind of thing would agree. They'd probably flounder around trying to get accurate information that doesn't exist, whereas someone from a "liar-culture" would just accept that they are not able to be accurately informed and choose in ignorance.
Oh, and the "silliness" of voting with your feet is a lot less silly when you're not a native of the country in the first place. And the US in particular NEEDS immigration to prevent a social collapse.
Actually, while experience is very valuable, I'd rather not hire a programmer that has no college education. Although it is possible to learn everything CS degrees teach without attending actual school, very few people do that. It's just more efficient to learn that as part of a degree -- although you have to learn quite a bit more than what you will eventually need, you never know which parts are things you do NOT need. Without knowing at least something about compiler theory, relational model, discrete maths, data structure basics, algorithms etc., you aren't much of a software developer; no matter how much experience you have doing more trivial programming.
At least in CS it's simple: like they say, simple problems were all solved in 60s (if not 50s). If you do not learn what the great minds learnt/invented/solved (but rather go and solve them by trial and error... or worse, never learn them!), you are just colossaly wasting your time. Either you are ignorant of useful techniques, or you have used awfully lots of time reinventing the wheel.
However, after learning enough (B.Sc, or maybe M.Sc... depends on kinds of things you are working on), I certainly agree one has to go out and use the knowledge. Going for higher degrees without intervening real-world experience is as silly as ignoring 'formal' CS theory altogether.
See, that all sounds good.
But the fact is, once you get into the market, your stupid piece of paper isn't worth shit. It puts you one up on the guy who has neither experience nor education, and that's not enough.
I've got a rinky-dink piece of paper from a school that no longer exists. Took me 8 months to get, wasn't worth shit, wasted a lot of money, haven't used anything that I learned in there since I got out. But not knowing any better, I got it. When I went and got my first job in IT, they didn't even give a shit about my school; nothing I had learned there was relevant. I showed them I was confident, ambitious and willing to learn, and off I went.
Fast forward 5 years. I'm not yet 30, a consultant, make more than my father, do lead development work for fortune 500 companies, and have regularly had to teach ignoramuses with CS degrees how to do their jobs. I have no degree, but I've got a very large bookshelf full of worn texts I've read back to front a dozen times and numerous large, successful projects under my belt. Know where the majority of the people I know with CS degrees work? They're telemarketers for HP.
So you can talk about how "silly" ignoring "formal" CS theory is. Doesn't phase me. Why? Because I've made my career proving you wrong, and I'm not even near my peak.
I'll take my page out of the books of Job and Woz, thanks.
Compared to some of the contracts I've seen awarded lately, this barely even counts as overseas. Besides, we could use more trade with Canada.
:D
As a matter of fact, in light of the fact that you can walk from the US to Canada, one might even say that it DOESN'T count as overseas at all!
Most people that hold MBA's aren't worth the paper their MBA's are printed on...
As opposed to those with a CS degree?
You've wasted enough of your life in school. Go DO stuff. How many years did you spend not making shit income in school and how much money did you spend to be there? Imagine what you could have done with that time if you'd gotten a computer, some books, and gone about making shit happen?
Education is what employers settle for when they can't get their hands on someone with experience. Stop wasting your life and go get started.
Getting into space is more complex than flying an airplane up to 63 miles and jumping out. To go into orbit you need to achieve a speed of about Mach 25 (Spaceship 1 was nowhere even close to orbital velocity). Rocket technologies today make sense in accomplishing this by minimizing the weight of the spacecraft and maximizing the weight of the fuel. To do what you want would require that almost all of the fuel and useful spacecraft are carried in an aircraft to perhaps 100,000 feet. The fuel to do so would be enormous and you would still have to fire the rocket to get the other Mach 24 or so. The complex airoframe required to pull this off would probably require a significantly larger amount of fuel that is used today. The losses a rocket has from atmospheric drag at high velocities (up to about 100,000 feet to be equivalent) would be vastly smaller than the fuel required to launch a standard airplane assisted rocket launch.
...and this might be the best reason, is due to launch site azimuth restrictions. Currently, if designers want to place a spacecraft into orbit, they must hope that they can reach an orbit allowed by the azimuths permitted from a given launch site. (For example, Kennedy Space Center can launch to 29 - 57 degrees inclination.) If designers want to attain other inclinations, the must force the launch vehicle to perform doglegs, carry on-board propellant for plane changes, or choose a different launch site. By launching from an airbreathing vehicle, the launch platform can basically attain any inclination desired and avoid population centers. Allowing a spacecraft to direct inject to a desired inclination would either save major amounts of mass or allow much larger, more capable spacecraft.
On a side note, a scramjet may be useful in the future due to its small engine size (extremely few parts). In this scenario a rocket would launch from the ground up to Mach 1, the scramjet would accelerate up to Mach 15, and then another rocket would accelarate up to Mach 25 for orbit or escape. Considering that no space launch has ever used a scramjet, I don't think its fair to call existing technologies 'dumb'. But then again, when has anyone considered 'rocket scientist' to be a synonymn for 'intelligent engineer'?
I can think of a number of advantages.
The first is that you don't have to plow through the atmosphere. Air pressure increases with speed and decreases with density as you rise, which means that the shuttles have to throttle back their speed until they are high in the atmosphere to avoid having the shuttle come apart. Then they accelerate as fast as possible. This point is called max q. (q=dynamic pressure) Basically your shuttle is idling along until it reaches this height. If you take the craft up to this height first using a plane instead of a booster, you're avoiding a tremendous amount of fuel wasting drag and are able to dramatically increase your thrust to weight ratio, increasing efficiency.
The second major advantage is that you don't need to use liquid oxygen until you launch your rocket from the "booster plane". You can just use atmospheric oxygen. There is a tremendous weight (and thus fuel) savings right there.
I'm going to quote someone more educated in this than myself for my third point:
Now, you may not consider existing technologies "dumb", but anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that they couldn't find a more inefficient method of getting that thing to the edge of the atmosphere if they tried. They've been running with the same design for how long now? This stuff was obvious to me when I was 15 years old! What were they waiting for?
They've got an absolutely retarded budget, and are "supposed" to be among our very best and brightest. But the way things are looking, I'd say there's a better chance of a video game designer getting this technology working than NASA. Not that John isn't a demonstratedly brilliant man, but still, there's somethin
I doubt that private enterprise would be stupid enough to build a shuttle. Burning fuel to carry all that weight to the edge of the atmosphere when you can fly it to the edge of the sky and launch it from there is pretty dumb...
You can't remove a selection of objects instead of an individual object that way. And it's a lot harder to accurately grab the edges of small objects in a gesture.
Navigating the context menu is a bit of a pain in the ass, I will agree... what would be nice is if there was a keyboard shortcut for the Remove X menu item so you could just select the junk, right click, keypress and you're done without moving the mouse.
PHP lets you do that, but you have to progam it. Page date? Sure. Put in a URL parameter for "recordstart=" and "numofrecords=". Sort by a column? Sure, put in a parameter for "col=" and "sortorder=" - there are a hundred ways to do it. Then in your PHP code you read those parameters and craft a SQL query to do the deed.
Sounds fine, right?
ASP.NET developes can do that with literally two clicks and setting a property or maybe two. Then you create a stored procedure for your query (abstracting out that phase), and your users can sort by any column, page with user-definable page lengths - without generating a new query to the server (whereas your PHP example probably generates a query on every page request). If the user has a new-ish browser he/she can resort without another page load, as well as probably re-size the number of records on page. If the user is on an older browser or one without javascript enabled the script automatically detects this and serves a static copy, much like the one you generated with PHP.
You are so totally talking out of your ass.
The DataGrid control which you are referring to allows you to implement default paging and sorting or custom paging and sorting.
But when you use default paging and sorting, the query pulls ALL the sorted data from the database tier to the web tier, then cuts out the stuff that's not relevant to the page. Every time you page, you're pulling ALL the data from the database. Every time you change the sort order, you're pulling ALL the data from the database. This is completely USELESS as in broken for ANYTHING except small tables. And if you're not using the DataGrid, you get nothing.
So when you go about impementing custom paging, which you WILL need to do, it becomes MORE work than under classic ASP.
You know how you do paging properly in ASP.NET? You skip those stupid fucking useless controls, you write your paging and sorting into your stored procedure where it fucking belongs and you use a DataReader control to fetch your data in firehose mode.
Just like you should have been doing in ASP all along.
What is unprofessional about taking the time to research a person, examine their body of work and questioning them about it before you hire them? You do the same to them before you apply, don't you? I know I do.
My understanding was that it has nothing to do with re-hiring someone else...
As far as I know, "laying off" someone in Canada just boils down to giving them a severance package (which can be several weeks'/months' pay, depending on how long they've worked there, among other thing). When you fire someone with cause, you don't have to pay them for anything more than what they've already earned.
You're mistaken. If you get laid off or your employer goes out of business in Canada, you qualify for your unemployment insurance. If you get fired or quit, you don't. It's a big deal.
If those restrictions didn't exist, people could game the system. An example might be a company that lays off all their staff, hires other staff, then lays off that staff and hires the original staff. Rinse, repeat, and you've got people able to work 6 months a year and then continue to get paid unemployment insurance until that runs out. I'm not sure how long that would be, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Aside from that, it would allow all sorts of exploitation of workers if you could just fire anyone you wanted without cause. The amount of sexual harassment you could get away with if you could just fire anyone you wanted any time without any justification, for example.
I can certainly see the perspective of the employers who don't like the loss of personal freedom, and could be "stuck" keeping on paying someone they'd rather replace if the person hasn't given them just cause for firing. That said, the reality of the world right now is that most people aren't working for individuals anymore anyways, they're working for corporations. Which means the individual "stuck" with them isn't losing any freedom or having any financial obligation placed on them personally, they're just doing their jobs.
You said a mouthful there. Firefox ain't shit without it's extensions.
Sorry, but if it doesn't have tabs, adblock, all-in-one gestures and nuke anything, I'm not surfing with it.
Sounds like a great victory for those who intend to wear one, but actually the opposite is true, because every employee who wants to avoid such behavior will simply not hire any women being muslim anymore.
Sounds like a pretty sure fire way to end up in jail to me.
I believe this extends to private companies in Canada. Unless they have due cause, they can't just fire you. They can lay you off because they don't need you anymore, but if they're caught re-hiring someone with your skill set in the immediate future after laying you off, they're fucked.
You see a lot of jobs up here that are just under 35 hours a week up here, because part-time employees don't recieve the same protections. Instead of 3 employees working full time, you hire 4 to work 30 hrs a week and you can screw them over to your hearts content.
A dictatorship requires guns.
That's what the law is all about. You buy a law, you get the guns to back it up thrown in for free.
No, he means that OpenBSD is on the recovery from a virus picked up while sharing source. The recovery has been attributed to the high quality of the Canadian bud it has been smoking.
Someone told me that Americans think bud comes in a can... is that true?
Telcoms will be able to do wireless far more efficiently. That's what these people understand. The fact that govts are even considering muni WiFi just shows how inefficient govt is when WiMax is right around the corner. These local govts. wouldn't understand a link budget if it punched them in the face.
If you're right, the municipalities can hire them to do the work for them. If the municipalities are able to do it more effectively on their own than by hiring a telco, that telco doesn't deserve to be in business.
You think making it illegal for your customers to do it themselves so they'll continue to hire you to do it is the answer?
It's simple.
If you're the representative of a large news organization that can
a) Buy Laws
b) Buy Politicans
c) Destroy Politicians
Then you're a journalist and entitled to their protections. If you're not a representative of an organization like this, you're not.
I'm specifically against government-sponsored WiFi because it's a much more specialized market. Everyone who works uses roads--if they don't drive on them, they ride on them (the special cases where people work at home aside.) Even people who don't use roads to get to work tend to use them to get to the market, even if it's just walking across a street or two.
WiFi is a much more specialized. I have to have a computer of some sort in order to use it. Nothing I was born with allows me to naturally take advantage of this service. In fact, what we'll see is either a tax on computers being used to pay for the WiFi service (fair, but I'd rather pay for my own wired broadband if possible) or we'll see people who have no way of using the service (the poor who can't afford personal computers) paying for the rich who can. In general, I'm against such taxes, but that's probably how it will end up as any installation of this size will require significant maintenance which means a continual source of revenue.
Sounds a lot like telephones. You've got to have a phone to use it. People without a special use don't need it, they all live next to their family and friends anyways.
And television too. If you don't have a television, your're not going to get to see these "pictures that fly through the air" anyways.
And what the hell is with these roads? I can walk everywhere I need to go. I'm not paying for them, let the guys pulling carts full of crops to market pay for that.
Good thing we never let the government get involved in them.
I like 2048x786 m'self, but that 1200x1600 sounds good for reading pdfs.
You'd be suprised. My last employer used to always tell me "They're not paying much, so just make it a quick and dirty."
Never understood why people use that saying. Doing it "dirty" takes more time in the end.