Estimating accurately isn't so much of an art of estimating accurately, as it is being able to figure what to chop that still gets the product in on some semblance of being on time and in a way that people like it. The deal is, you have to be able to get a screen or database up and running ok in some x number of hours, and prioritize, to fit that estimate. Once you start doing that, then you can adjust your estimates to allow for more features or yes.
This trend shows no signs of slowing down; rather, it appears to be accelerating. So take that into account when talking about range for the future.
All good points, but you gloss over the whole issue of "rapid charging". Dumping the energy equivalent of a 20 gallon tank of gasoline (roughly the same as 2000 sticks of dynamite) into a compact mobile storage system in a matter of minutes is a non-trivial engineering effort. It's an active process: chemical changes are occurring, thermal losses are being dissipated, whereas filling a tank is rather passive in comparison and inherently safer. We'll have to reduce I^R losses considerably before that happens anyway. Face it, a liquid-fueled system make a hell of a lot of sense from a distribution perspective: the only question is whether that liquid needs to be gasoline. And, frankly, I'd rather be sitting astride a tank of relatively safe fossil fuel than I would a couple hundred kilowatt/hours of battery pack. Those things are not safe, and cannot really ever be made safe, and the lower the internal resistance the more dangerous they become when damaged.
Furthermore, the existing power grid in the U.S. is not in any shape for a nation of pure electric vehicles. It simply was not designed for that purpose... hell, we can barely handle all our air conditioners. Fact is, we have neither the generating nor distribution capacity, and such a buildout would be hideously expensive at this point. Maybe if we hadn't spent a couple trillion dollars on Iraq, and another trillion or so in bailout funds we could pull it off, but I doubt it's in the cards now.
Actually, it's not. Bullshit, that is. Even the existing telcos (AT&T and the Baby Bells) are only common carriers with regards to their telephony services: their data services somehow got an exemption. The GP is also correct in noting that ISPs don't want common carrier status: that has a regulatory burden and associated costs that they'd rather avoid.
Do you know what the word "hostile" means? It doesn't usually refer to something that makes and sells you products for I.O.U credits that are worth less and less every day.
Do you understand what "totalitarian state" means? It doesn't usually refer to something that has your best interests at heart, or for that matter understands the usual Western-style business ethic.
Yeah, I thought that one was maybe a little too subtle, but I hoped the italics would help. Of course, I understand there are one or two Slashdotters that haven't yet seen the movie.
Seeing as China makes lots of the core internet routers these days (with quickly growing market share) there is every reason to assume we're getting man-in-the-middle pwned.
I'm not in *.cn, and I'm not visiting *.cn, so why in Hell should this certificate apply to me? If suddenly www.adobe.com is signed by China, there sure is a problem!
It's funny, you know... if we were all buying high-end routers from Russia everyone would flipping out about security. But China makes inroads on that market (with the obvious intention of dominating it) and nobody really seems too upset. You have to assume that a hostile totalitarian state might try to exploit that advantage in some way.
And it extends way beyond China. I see this as simply another example of "yellow peril" thinking. What about the Brits, who want to monitor everything? What about the French, who want to kick people off the net for misbehaving? What about Iran, who wants to kick out everyone? Do you really think the USA looks like the good guys to the rest of the 'net? Who gave the world Microsoft, and the RIAA, and the MPAA? All this "evil Chinese" stuff is getting tiresome.
Gagh. Such histrionics. Look, this isn't about all Chinese people being evil. It is about a particular country that happens to be the source of an astounding number of remote attacks, cracks, hacks and exploits on the network infrastructure of other nations. The question is whether or not those nations who are subject to China's self-serving Internet activities should aid in those efforts. Rather a foot-in-self-shoot situation really. Me, I've all but switched to Chrome anyway for most things, and this is just another reason to finish the job.
I know what you're saying when you use the phrase "yellow peril", but there is some truth to it. China is a threat on the world scene, more than at any other point in their history.
It's easy to bash the bankers - heck, a lot of politicians are making a career out of it.
But given that the banking industry basically underpins all the others, there were very few options but to bail them out. Not saying I like or agree with it, but I'm calling it how it is.
In consequence it comes down to this - when the banks hold a pistol to their heads, they're pointing a fucking big howitzer at everyone else.
Two things went wrong: improper Clinton-era deregulation (yes, this has been going on for a while now) and bank management that immediately began to exhibit the very behavior the original regulation was designed to prevent. Much as some of us detest the thought, the reality is that there is no such thing as a workable "free market", those with power cannot be trusted to wield it with anything but their own best interests in mind, and because of that we do need the institution of government.
This is not true, everyone knows that if you run a specific frequency of AC current through water, you get be more hydrogen out of the water than what you are putting in current wise.
“If ‘everybody knows’ such –and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one.”
-- Robert A. Heinlein
In the meantime, while you're digesting Heinlein's wisdom, you might wish to review some basics.
If you follow your logic to the extreme then we should close the borders and allow zero immigration. Is that what you advocate?
"If we follow your logic to the extreme"... what the hell does that mean? The GP made a reasonable (and, I might add, valid) point. It also had nothing whatsoever to do with immigration.
Your transparent attempt to discredit his perspective by carrying it to the point of ridiculousness says a lot more about you than anything else. If you have a legitimate argument as to why America (or any other nation) should simply allow itself to be dismantled and sold off piecemeal to the rest of the world, please make it. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
An excess of supply over demand would drive down salaries irrespective of whether the surplus applicants came from Indiana or India.
Yes, and the normal cycle is that a shortage causes salaries to rise until sufficient workers are trained in order to alleviate the shortage. Then salaries drop. The point is, you see nothing wrong with a deliberately manufactured surplus of certain classes of traditionally well-paid workers instituted for the express purpose of driving down wages? How is that any different from what the oil companies did back in the seventies by manufacturing an "energy crisis" for the express purpose of raping our wallets? Either way, for an American corporate to treat domestic workers that way is sleazy, underhanded and treasonous.
Yes it is, and it was perpetrated on the American people at the behest of those CEO-types I referred to in my original message. When Microsoft lays off several thousand workers while in the same breath complaining that the H1B Visa allotment is too low, I consider that a scam. Congress has bought into it wholesale, as have you, and that's unfortunate.
Where you were born is random chance, so it hardly seems fair for me to hoard the benefits of living in the USA.
And it's that very attitude that has substantially reduced the benefits of living in the U.S. of A. You're apparently one of those drain-bamaged individuals who believe that everyone is entitled to a share of what everyone else has acquired or built for himself. Do you really, deep in your heart of hearts, truly believe that? Do you actually feel guilty that your ancestors built something wonderful for you to enjoy? Well, get over it. Believe me, the people who came before you would be ashamed of your attitude. You probably believe that a welfare state is a good thing too. Well, just remember, there are plenty of Pauls and not enough Peters to go around. I, for one, have no desire to live in a third-world hellhole and it's attitudes like yours that are fucking making it happen!
Furthermore, there are few, if any, nations on this planet whose people believe as you do, whose official immigration policies accept anyone from anywhere, regardless of the consequences. So why do you believe that it would be in the best interests of your country to behave otherwise?
Take Mexico for example: have you read Mexico's immigration requirements? Probably you haven't, but you should. It's interesting reading, and not at all in line with your ideas. That from the nation that exports more illegal aliens than most.
Frankly, open borders are NOT what we pay our government to do. ALL nations reserve the right to decide who does and does not get to immigrate. Get used to that: America has the same right as any other country to place such restrictions that we deem appropriate. The only countries which don't attempt to control and limit the number and quality of immigrants are those which are so lawless that they have no clue who is crossing their borders. Why don't you go live in Somalia, I understand they're pretty lax about border controls and such. Of course, you probably wouldn't survive the experience, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Regardless of the "accident" of birth, the reality is that this is our country, it is not theirs, and we can and should defend what is ours. Do you have a family? Do you have anyone whose future well-being concerns you? If so, then it's obvious you don't really care about them. You might want to think about that for a moment, and think about what it means when a nation fails.
Americans who honestly believe that we should just let everyone take whatever they wish from us, jobs, homes, money, whatever, out of some misplaced sense of guilt, are getting dangerously close to treasonous in my opinion. Maybe they don't see it that way, but I do. Put it this way: I place my fellow Americans before those of all other nations, and I fully expect them to feel the same.
And just for the record, my girlfriend (well, okay, she's more than that now, since we'll be getting married later this year) immigrated here from North Africa many years ago, and is a U.S. citizen now. The thing is, people who espouse views like yours are particularly abhorrent to her, because she knows firsthand what happens to a society that fails to protect its own.
Evolution in action, baby. Anyone who is willing to not only believe in perpetual motion but invest money in it deserves whatever it is he or she gets from their particular brand of ignorance. A basic grade-school science curriculum should be sufficient armor against a scam of this type (well, at least in my day it was.)
Serious? Really? How are most technology CEO's scammers on a level that this guy is on? Can you name a legit technology CEO that you think is at that same 'scam level'?
Well, "scammer" is a relative term. Certainly a number of U.S. CEO-types have scammed their employees out of their jobs, and have been scamming the government for years (H1B allocations, outsourcing, not enough capable American workers, TARP, etc. etc. etc.) so a comparison of the level of ethics involved is entirely reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
Estimating accurately isn't so much of an art of estimating accurately, as it is being able to figure what to chop that still gets the product in on some semblance of being on time and in a way that people like it. The deal is, you have to be able to get a screen or database up and running ok in some x number of hours, and prioritize, to fit that estimate. Once you start doing that, then you can adjust your estimates to allow for more features or yes.
Dirty Harry: A man's got to know his limitations.
Myriad's press release just sounds like Chuck Norris decided to dabble in software development
No, he gave Dalvik a roundhouse kick to the garbage collector.
This trend shows no signs of slowing down; rather, it appears to be accelerating. So take that into account when talking about range for the future.
All good points, but you gloss over the whole issue of "rapid charging". Dumping the energy equivalent of a 20 gallon tank of gasoline (roughly the same as 2000 sticks of dynamite) into a compact mobile storage system in a matter of minutes is a non-trivial engineering effort. It's an active process: chemical changes are occurring, thermal losses are being dissipated, whereas filling a tank is rather passive in comparison and inherently safer. We'll have to reduce I^R losses considerably before that happens anyway. Face it, a liquid-fueled system make a hell of a lot of sense from a distribution perspective: the only question is whether that liquid needs to be gasoline. And, frankly, I'd rather be sitting astride a tank of relatively safe fossil fuel than I would a couple hundred kilowatt/hours of battery pack. Those things are not safe, and cannot really ever be made safe, and the lower the internal resistance the more dangerous they become when damaged.
... hell, we can barely handle all our air conditioners. Fact is, we have neither the generating nor distribution capacity, and such a buildout would be hideously expensive at this point. Maybe if we hadn't spent a couple trillion dollars on Iraq, and another trillion or so in bailout funds we could pull it off, but I doubt it's in the cards now.
Furthermore, the existing power grid in the U.S. is not in any shape for a nation of pure electric vehicles. It simply was not designed for that purpose
*COUGH* Bullshit *COUGH*
Actually, it's not. Bullshit, that is. Even the existing telcos (AT&T and the Baby Bells) are only common carriers with regards to their telephony services: their data services somehow got an exemption. The GP is also correct in noting that ISPs don't want common carrier status: that has a regulatory burden and associated costs that they'd rather avoid.
Do you know what the word "hostile" means? It doesn't usually refer to something that makes and sells you products for I.O.U credits that are worth less and less every day.
Do you understand what "totalitarian state" means? It doesn't usually refer to something that has your best interests at heart, or for that matter understands the usual Western-style business ethic.
I hate to say it, but you didn't manage to refute anything I said, not to mention the fact that we're discussing cyberattacks here, not bunkerbusters.
*whoosh*
Yeah, I thought that one was maybe a little too subtle, but I hoped the italics would help. Of course, I understand there are one or two Slashdotters that haven't yet seen the movie.
Some people can't be bought, bargained or reasoned with.
Yes, and they absolutely will not stop.
Seeing as China makes lots of the core internet routers these days (with quickly growing market share) there is every reason to assume we're getting man-in-the-middle pwned.
I'm not in *.cn, and I'm not visiting *.cn, so why in Hell should this certificate apply to me? If suddenly www.adobe.com is signed by China, there sure is a problem!
It's funny, you know ... if we were all buying high-end routers from Russia everyone would flipping out about security. But China makes inroads on that market (with the obvious intention of dominating it) and nobody really seems too upset. You have to assume that a hostile totalitarian state might try to exploit that advantage in some way.
Weird. And I always thought denial was a river.
> ... it extends way beyond firefox.
And it extends way beyond China. I see this as simply another example of "yellow peril" thinking. What about the Brits, who want to monitor everything? What about the French, who want to kick people off the net for misbehaving? What about Iran, who wants to kick out everyone? Do you really think the USA looks like the good guys to the rest of the 'net? Who gave the world Microsoft, and the RIAA, and the MPAA? All this "evil Chinese" stuff is getting tiresome.
Gagh. Such histrionics. Look, this isn't about all Chinese people being evil. It is about a particular country that happens to be the source of an astounding number of remote attacks, cracks, hacks and exploits on the network infrastructure of other nations. The question is whether or not those nations who are subject to China's self-serving Internet activities should aid in those efforts. Rather a foot-in-self-shoot situation really. Me, I've all but switched to Chrome anyway for most things, and this is just another reason to finish the job.
I know what you're saying when you use the phrase "yellow peril", but there is some truth to it. China is a threat on the world scene, more than at any other point in their history.
What's a MiTH attack? Man in ..?
It's an attack that doesn't actually exist, e.g., one that is "mithical". Of course, a mith is as good as a mile anyways.
When you can never really own anything it's called socialism...
Ok not really but I wanted to use socialism in a sentence and I think it still works to get the idea across.
It would probably work better if you called it "communism".
Because national borders are a fiction clung to by the fearful.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Open ALL borders. Socialized healthcare for all. Burn in hell Thatcherite cunt.
Psst! Buddy, your ignorance is showing. Not to mention your general air of uncouthness.
It's easy to bash the bankers - heck, a lot of politicians are making a career out of it.
But given that the banking industry basically underpins all the others, there were very few options but to bail them out. Not saying I like or agree with it, but I'm calling it how it is.
In consequence it comes down to this - when the banks hold a pistol to their heads, they're pointing a fucking big howitzer at everyone else.
Two things went wrong: improper Clinton-era deregulation (yes, this has been going on for a while now) and bank management that immediately began to exhibit the very behavior the original regulation was designed to prevent. Much as some of us detest the thought, the reality is that there is no such thing as a workable "free market", those with power cannot be trusted to wield it with anything but their own best interests in mind, and because of that we do need the institution of government.
This is not true, everyone knows that if you run a specific frequency of AC current through water, you get be more hydrogen out of the water than what you are putting in current wise.
“If ‘everybody knows’ such –and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one.”
-- Robert A. Heinlein
In the meantime, while you're digesting Heinlein's wisdom, you might wish to review some basics.
AC would just give you warm water.
No, AC will give you an oxy-hydrogen mix. Electrolysis will still occur, but you'll just get both gases at both electrodes.
Your utopian plan will never be adopted by Americans because it is just plain stupid.
I believe you misspelled "dystopian".
If you follow your logic to the extreme then we should close the borders and allow zero immigration. Is that what you advocate?
"If we follow your logic to the extreme" ... what the hell does that mean? The GP made a reasonable (and, I might add, valid) point. It also had nothing whatsoever to do with immigration.
Your transparent attempt to discredit his perspective by carrying it to the point of ridiculousness says a lot more about you than anything else. If you have a legitimate argument as to why America (or any other nation) should simply allow itself to be dismantled and sold off piecemeal to the rest of the world, please make it. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
An excess of supply over demand would drive down salaries irrespective of whether the surplus applicants came from Indiana or India.
Yes, and the normal cycle is that a shortage causes salaries to rise until sufficient workers are trained in order to alleviate the shortage. Then salaries drop. The point is, you see nothing wrong with a deliberately manufactured surplus of certain classes of traditionally well-paid workers instituted for the express purpose of driving down wages? How is that any different from what the oil companies did back in the seventies by manufacturing an "energy crisis" for the express purpose of raping our wallets? Either way, for an American corporate to treat domestic workers that way is sleazy, underhanded and treasonous.
H1B is a scam?
Yes it is, and it was perpetrated on the American people at the behest of those CEO-types I referred to in my original message. When Microsoft lays off several thousand workers while in the same breath complaining that the H1B Visa allotment is too low, I consider that a scam. Congress has bought into it wholesale, as have you, and that's unfortunate.
Where you were born is random chance, so it hardly seems fair for me to hoard the benefits of living in the USA.
And it's that very attitude that has substantially reduced the benefits of living in the U.S. of A. You're apparently one of those drain-bamaged individuals who believe that everyone is entitled to a share of what everyone else has acquired or built for himself. Do you really, deep in your heart of hearts, truly believe that? Do you actually feel guilty that your ancestors built something wonderful for you to enjoy? Well, get over it. Believe me, the people who came before you would be ashamed of your attitude. You probably believe that a welfare state is a good thing too. Well, just remember, there are plenty of Pauls and not enough Peters to go around. I, for one, have no desire to live in a third-world hellhole and it's attitudes like yours that are fucking making it happen!
Furthermore, there are few, if any, nations on this planet whose people believe as you do, whose official immigration policies accept anyone from anywhere, regardless of the consequences. So why do you believe that it would be in the best interests of your country to behave otherwise?
Take Mexico for example: have you read Mexico's immigration requirements? Probably you haven't, but you should. It's interesting reading, and not at all in line with your ideas. That from the nation that exports more illegal aliens than most.
Frankly, open borders are NOT what we pay our government to do. ALL nations reserve the right to decide who does and does not get to immigrate. Get used to that: America has the same right as any other country to place such restrictions that we deem appropriate. The only countries which don't attempt to control and limit the number and quality of immigrants are those which are so lawless that they have no clue who is crossing their borders. Why don't you go live in Somalia, I understand they're pretty lax about border controls and such. Of course, you probably wouldn't survive the experience, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Regardless of the "accident" of birth, the reality is that this is our country, it is not theirs, and we can and should defend what is ours. Do you have a family? Do you have anyone whose future well-being concerns you? If so, then it's obvious you don't really care about them. You might want to think about that for a moment, and think about what it means when a nation fails.
Americans who honestly believe that we should just let everyone take whatever they wish from us, jobs, homes, money, whatever, out of some misplaced sense of guilt, are getting dangerously close to treasonous in my opinion. Maybe they don't see it that way, but I do. Put it this way: I place my fellow Americans before those of all other nations, and I fully expect them to feel the same.
And just for the record, my girlfriend (well, okay, she's more than that now, since we'll be getting married later this year) immigrated here from North Africa many years ago, and is a U.S. citizen now. The thing is, people who espouse views like yours are particularly abhorrent to her, because she knows firsthand what happens to a society that fails to protect its own.
Darl McBride, ex-CEO of SCO.
Well, to be fair he did say "legit" technology CEO.
They're doing the human race a favour. Really.
Evolution in action, baby. Anyone who is willing to not only believe in perpetual motion but invest money in it deserves whatever it is he or she gets from their particular brand of ignorance. A basic grade-school science curriculum should be sufficient armor against a scam of this type (well, at least in my day it was.)
Serious? Really? How are most technology CEO's scammers on a level that this guy is on? Can you name a legit technology CEO that you think is at that same 'scam level'?
Well, "scammer" is a relative term. Certainly a number of U.S. CEO-types have scammed their employees out of their jobs, and have been scamming the government for years (H1B allocations, outsourcing, not enough capable American workers, TARP, etc. etc. etc.) so a comparison of the level of ethics involved is entirely reasonable.
flat, sexy and will revolutionaise the tablet market
Yes, it's Apple's new iBLT.