None will require a 3GHz processor as the parent suggests.
I never suggested that anything required a 3GHz processor. Almost nothing the consumer desktop does, except games (and even then only certain games), requires it. My point was that I couldn't see any good reason not to include hardware that exceeds the requirements, while I pointed out several reasons to do it.
This area happens to be within the scope of my research, and I think it would be next to impossible to go overboard with the hardware.
Anyway, why exactly do you need a PowerPC 603e and two USB ports for..uh..diagnosing cars? Seems to me that the hardware is a bit overkill
Overkill? If anything, the PPC 603e is way undershooting what I think could/should be appropriate for automotive computing. Why not a 3GHz Pentium? I admit I don't know the numbers in terms of converting electrical consumption to gallons/mile, but I imagine it's fairly negligible, especially when compared to the requirements for air conditioning.
And as far as USB ports go...the more the merrier! Diagnostic devices could use them, MP3 players and other portable storage devices could be used, or even a laptop.
...but this doesn't need to be full powered.
I can think of several applications where having a "full-powered" computer in a car would be useful, not least of which is if you are on an automotive network (which doesn't really exist yet) and the environment requires high-grade encryption or other measures to provide the appropriate security. If the automotive network is P2P, lots of resources might be needed to make it work well.
For things going on *today*, maybe not much is needed, but why not provide more than what's needed so that people don't have to retrofit cars with more powerful computing hardware because the manufacturer only gave them a PPC 603e?
Sure, programmers will be extinct within the near future in Western countries. But there's a difference between programming and software engineering; I personally think that software engineering will still take place in the western countries...
I don't think it's that there's this big separation between programming and software engineering such that programming will leave and SE will stay; rather, I think programming is a subset of software engineering. The projects that are getting shipped out are those that are well-defined and have already been done and don't require a lot of "new" development. The mondane, if you will. What will stay here in the West are projects that are companies' flagship products, critical products, and newer innovation. If all of our industries were still clinging to those type of projects we would not be able to make as much progress as fast.
Consider electronics manufacturing for example. I think it's fairly easy to see that Intel, AMD, TI, Motorola, and countless others who rely on foreign electronics manufacturing are able to provide us with better and more advanced products because of it.
Just so you know, I am ecstatic to be having this kind of debate and will continue on indefinitely, if the slashdot code allows it (I wonder what the limit on depth of replies is).
The Federalists conceeded the absolutism of separation to the Anti-Federalists during the debate over the Bill of Rights....it is contained in the Anti-Federalist Papers and the Federalists discussions following the publication of the Federalist Papers.
I was unable to find an absolutist position in the anti-federalist papers or in some of the important speeches given at that time. I would be more than happy to read someone's support of that position if I could find it; maybe you could help me out in that regard.
I can defend this point with the historical record, I've yet to find someone who held the opposite position who can do the same.
I don't know if I can defend my position to your satisfaction or not; however, you might look into reading some of David Barton's writings (here's an example: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/det ai l.php?ResourceID=9 ) which can either be read or referenced at wallbuildiners.com. David is a constitutional historian by education and profession of whom I think very highly.
As far as accusing me of using a crutch, I wasn't basing my rational, just characterizing the non-absolutist position.
The entire point of my 'crutch' comment was to point out that this is an unfair mischaracterization.
The historical record doesn't support the non-absolutist position, and that has been consistently reinforced by peer reviewed academia and the courts.
The "historical record" does lend support to the "non-absolutist" position, which I'm sure we will eventually get to. Perhaps we would be better of debating what "absolutist" and "non-absolutist" means first. I should also say that "peer reviewed academia" only serves to hurt your position in my eyes; I have less than little regard for it. The courts are generally better, but not always (anyone who knows a number of court decisions can probably think of one they believe is unconstitutional or illegal. The 9th circuit comes to mind...).
It seems that once ignorance is not a factor there must be an ulterior motive for asserting this position.
I thought we were past this type of mischaracterization already ("if you disagree you're either stupid or evil").
I'll be watching for you to point out the "absolutist" position somewhere in the "historical record".
It's a slippery slope you see. Soon the assholes will want backdoors to encryption programs or they will ban them outright.
A good insight, except it's about 20 years too late; "they" already tried preventing the exportation of crypto, anad that battle has largely been lost (as I see it). Anyone and everyone can use near-military grade encryption and the US Government already can't do anything about it. The traffic they really care about in terms of national security is already encrypted (most likely) and this kind of thing has a legal process to go through for law enforcement.
I see that there could be a danger here, and people should keep their eyes and ears open. Having said that, I think more is being made of this than it really is.
I *did* look before I leap, to an extent. I read as much about the new version of Evolution before posting as I had time for, and I never saw any mention of PGP in the features list or anywhere else. A more thorough inspection of the site may turn up a mention, but that still validates my point. People don't use it because they don't know about it; if it's an obscure feature hidden in the tarpit of feature-pork, what good is it? The people that know it's there already use it and would use it anyway, and the people who don't know it's there aren't any better off.
...the separation of church and state is absolute.
The Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and a number of other important documents seem to disagree with that assertion.
The US Government has no opinion of religion and must maintain that position in it's laws.
The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...".
This idea that it is not absolute is the product of demagogues and theocrats who have profited politically by misleading the public on their own history.
This kind of statement is just an intellectual crutch, akin to "Anyone who doesn't agree with me must be stupid or evil."; it's a lazy way to rationalize your own unwillingness to consider that a reasonable person could disagree.
When are we finally going to see these office-suite types of software packages offer built-in support for PGP/GPG? For crying out loud...half the problems we have with email could be solved if people used PGP and a whole heck of a lot more people would use PGP if it were built-in to their email client; that goes especially for the web email services like hotmail.
Also, America is based on the separation of church and state.
Not only is it apparent that the question's author hasn't read the Bill of Rights, but any credible history book either. America wasn't based on this idea at all. The idea itself was actually only a protection to keep the government from creating an "official" church like the Church of England, not a total separation of Church and State. Of course, there is much more to be said on this subject, but I think it's sufficient to say that the question was incredibly uninformed.
I know it's lame to reply to yourself, but I thought of a potential replacement.
"Consider for a moment your life outside the scope of the presidency. In other words, Senator Kerry should consider this as though he wasn't running for the presidency and had no plans to, and President Bush should consider this as though he were not the president anymore. What is life about? What makes you tick; what is most important?"
Agreed. I'm not so interested in the "national debt" either. I *would* be interested to know each candidate's take on technology outsourcing, though. Seems like most slashdotters would be interested also.
I would rephrase this way: What do you see as the biggest difference between your approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the approach of your opponent? What parts of your approach do you believe will be more effective/positive/longlasting/ and in what ways?
The current presidential system seems to have several shortcomings, including two-party duopoly and the ability to win the Election even after losing the popular vote. This hardly seems democratic.
I have two issues here. Firstly, the two-party system was by design and has its benefits. It is not a historical mistake to be corrected (ok, really three things. The electoral college was also not a mistake). Secondly, the US is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Democracy was intentionally avoided. It is actually a well thought out question and surely sincere, although not well informed.
Re:We WANT high labor costs! It's a Good Thing!
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 2, Informative
First of all, you should be drawn and quartered for using all-caps the way you did.
Labor costs are the PROFITS of the worker.
You are sorely mistaken on this point. Labor costs only hurt the business that workers work for; they don't benefit the worker in any way. Particularly when you're talking about labor costs in the for of taxes, there's no benefit to the worker. Hurting the business a worker works for is of course a negative thing. Ever heard of layoffs?
Look, the highest standards of living in the world are in the social demcracies of Europe...
Measuring the "standard of living" is a totally impossible thing to do. Different people have different priorities and mean different things when they say "standard of living". Is the gap between rich and poor in Sweden lower than in the US? You betcha. Would I rather live there than in the US? You're out of your mind....and they have HIGH labor costs--they have minimum wages levels of like $12/hour
I don't think that number is right. But those European nations do have higher minimum wages than in the US; they also have higher unemployment, lower job growth and lower overall economic growth. Go figure.
Fortunately, over 90% of Americans are WORKERS. Your problem is that you have been tricked by investor/corporate propaganda into thinking that YOU are an INVESTOR
Did you know that over 85% of all statistics are made up? Almost everyone I know is an investor of some sort. Do you have a savings account? Thne you're an investor. Ever heard of employee stock programs? Employee ownership programs?
The reason the 3rd world IS the 3rd world is that they have LOW LABOR COSTS. That is the DEFINTION of being 3rd world.
Wow, that's a pretty strict definition of 3rd world. If that's the only definition, then the US should strive to be 3rd world.
The reason many of the countries in NW Europe have the highest quality of life is because they have the HIGHEST COST OF LABOR. And it aint no accident. The two concepts are DIRECTLY RELATED.
I don't think you even know what the term "cost of labor" even means. Go troll somewhere else.
Traffic cameras would have the same effect as police. Slow down around them, then speed up when out of range:)
The difference is that cameras would be much cheaper than paying a policeman and operating a vehicle for 40 hours a week, and you could get *much*, *MUCH* better coverage (e.g., one a policeman pulls someone over, he can't do anything about anyone else until he's done there, where a camera likely not miss a speeder unless there were something obstructing it's view of an entire car).
This makes sense once you relize that accident are caused by people not paying attention. How is a traffic camera supposed to make these people suddenly start paying attention?
The anecdotal evidence (and of course, as usual, there is no intelligent agrument to be had here outside of anectodal evidence) of my argument is this: if my town had traffic cameras littered throughout the city and I knew that speeding/running lights would result in a ticket 95% of the time, I would be more aware --- generally speaking --- of my driving and make darn sure I don't speed or run lights. I think most people would probably react in the same way.
Not to mention the fact that when intersection light go in, they almost always shorten the yellow light period to make more money from tickets.
That's a red herring. You're not supposed to run yellow lights any more than you're supposed to run red lights. Besides, if they wanted to make more money from tickets, they'd forget about the stupid lights and install cameras!
sure, it would infuriate people for a while. Eventually though, after paying a bunch of tickets and realizing that it's a whole lot cheaper to just follow the speed limit, people would stop being infuriated and slow down.
It's interesting to me how people react to the idea of a city putting up cameras to catch people speeding (which could easily be done in such a way that there is no loss of privacy over the amount of privacy we now have on the road) versus the reaction that people have to the idea of car insurance companies putting black boxes in their cars. There is *far* more privacy loss involved in the black boxes than there would be with traffic cameras, and the traffic cameras would probably actually do more to "encourage" safe driving.
If a system administrator is doing the things necessary to reasonable secure a system, passwords are almost irrelevant, up to a stupid password like "password". As long as users don't pick something that an attacker can pick out of thin air (or a dictionary attack), and as long as a sys admin is doing a reasonable job, passwords should not have to grow in length and frequency of change.
This is exactly right. People get into major problems because they don't bother to read the contract/agreement that is given to them so they don't inconvenience the recruiter/interviewer by making them wait.
I don't have a lot of experience in this area, but I've heard that *lots* of employers are willing to change employee agreements if you make reasonable requests.
Slashdot Mirror
...on the other side of the pond...
Just FYI, "across the pond" always refers to the Atlantic Ocean.
None will require a 3GHz processor as the parent suggests.
I never suggested that anything required a 3GHz processor. Almost nothing the consumer desktop does, except games (and even then only certain games), requires it. My point was that I couldn't see any good reason not to include hardware that exceeds the requirements, while I pointed out several reasons to do it.
This area happens to be within the scope of my research, and I think it would be next to impossible to go overboard with the hardware.
...but this doesn't need to be full powered.
Anyway, why exactly do you need a PowerPC 603e and two USB ports for..uh..diagnosing cars? Seems to me that the hardware is a bit overkill
Overkill? If anything, the PPC 603e is way undershooting what I think could/should be appropriate for automotive computing. Why not a 3GHz Pentium? I admit I don't know the numbers in terms of converting electrical consumption to gallons/mile, but I imagine it's fairly negligible, especially when compared to the requirements for air conditioning.
And as far as USB ports go...the more the merrier! Diagnostic devices could use them, MP3 players and other portable storage devices could be used, or even a laptop.
I can think of several applications where having a "full-powered" computer in a car would be useful, not least of which is if you are on an automotive network (which doesn't really exist yet) and the environment requires high-grade encryption or other measures to provide the appropriate security. If the automotive network is P2P, lots of resources might be needed to make it work well.
For things going on *today*, maybe not much is needed, but why not provide more than what's needed so that people don't have to retrofit cars with more powerful computing hardware because the manufacturer only gave them a PPC 603e?
in related news...
Stargate SG-1 has a new season underway and Stargate Atlantis is just getting started.
(I prefer Starget to Farscape)
Sure, programmers will be extinct within the near future in Western countries. But there's a difference between programming and software engineering; I personally think that software engineering will still take place in the western countries...
I don't think it's that there's this big separation between programming and software engineering such that programming will leave and SE will stay; rather, I think programming is a subset of software engineering. The projects that are getting shipped out are those that are well-defined and have already been done and don't require a lot of "new" development. The mondane, if you will. What will stay here in the West are projects that are companies' flagship products, critical products, and newer innovation. If all of our industries were still clinging to those type of projects we would not be able to make as much progress as fast.
Consider electronics manufacturing for example. I think it's fairly easy to see that Intel, AMD, TI, Motorola, and countless others who rely on foreign electronics manufacturing are able to provide us with better and more advanced products because of it.
Just so you know, I am ecstatic to be having this kind of debate and will continue on indefinitely, if the slashdot code allows it (I wonder what the limit on depth of replies is).
...it is contained in the Anti-Federalist Papers and the Federalists discussions following the publication of the Federalist Papers.
t ai l.php?ResourceID=9
The Federalists conceeded the absolutism of separation to the Anti-Federalists during the debate over the Bill of Rights.
I was unable to find an absolutist position in the anti-federalist papers or in some of the important speeches given at that time. I would be more than happy to read someone's support of that position if I could find it; maybe you could help me out in that regard.
I can defend this point with the historical record, I've yet to find someone who held the opposite position who can do the same.
I don't know if I can defend my position to your satisfaction or not; however, you might look into reading some of David Barton's writings (here's an example:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/de
) which can either be read or referenced at wallbuildiners.com. David is a constitutional historian by education and profession of whom I think very highly.
As far as accusing me of using a crutch, I wasn't basing my rational, just characterizing the non-absolutist position.
The entire point of my 'crutch' comment was to point out that this is an unfair mischaracterization.
The historical record doesn't support the non-absolutist position, and that has been consistently reinforced by peer reviewed academia and the courts.
The "historical record" does lend support to the "non-absolutist" position, which I'm sure we will eventually get to. Perhaps we would be better of debating what "absolutist" and "non-absolutist" means first. I should also say that "peer reviewed academia" only serves to hurt your position in my eyes; I have less than little regard for it. The courts are generally better, but not always (anyone who knows a number of court decisions can probably think of one they believe is unconstitutional or illegal. The 9th circuit comes to mind...).
It seems that once ignorance is not a factor there must be an ulterior motive for asserting this position.
I thought we were past this type of mischaracterization already ("if you disagree you're either stupid or evil").
I'll be watching for you to point out the "absolutist" position somewhere in the "historical record".
It's a slippery slope you see. Soon the assholes will want backdoors to encryption programs or they will ban them outright.
A good insight, except it's about 20 years too late; "they" already tried preventing the exportation of crypto, anad that battle has largely been lost (as I see it). Anyone and everyone can use near-military grade encryption and the US Government already can't do anything about it. The traffic they really care about in terms of national security is already encrypted (most likely) and this kind of thing has a legal process to go through for law enforcement.
I see that there could be a danger here, and people should keep their eyes and ears open. Having said that, I think more is being made of this than it really is.
I *did* look before I leap, to an extent. I read as much about the new version of Evolution before posting as I had time for, and I never saw any mention of PGP in the features list or anywhere else. A more thorough inspection of the site may turn up a mention, but that still validates my point. People don't use it because they don't know about it; if it's an obscure feature hidden in the tarpit of feature-pork, what good is it? The people that know it's there already use it and would use it anyway, and the people who don't know it's there aren't any better off.
...the separation of church and state is absolute.
The Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and a number of other important documents seem to disagree with that assertion.
The US Government has no opinion of religion and must maintain that position in it's laws.
The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...".
This idea that it is not absolute is the product of demagogues and theocrats who have profited politically by misleading the public on their own history.
This kind of statement is just an intellectual crutch, akin to "Anyone who doesn't agree with me must be stupid or evil."; it's a lazy way to rationalize your own unwillingness to consider that a reasonable person could disagree.
When are we finally going to see these office-suite types of software packages offer built-in support for PGP/GPG? For crying out loud...half the problems we have with email could be solved if people used PGP and a whole heck of a lot more people would use PGP if it were built-in to their email client; that goes especially for the web email services like hotmail.
Also, America is based on the separation of church and state. Not only is it apparent that the question's author hasn't read the Bill of Rights, but any credible history book either. America wasn't based on this idea at all. The idea itself was actually only a protection to keep the government from creating an "official" church like the Church of England, not a total separation of Church and State. Of course, there is much more to be said on this subject, but I think it's sufficient to say that the question was incredibly uninformed.
I know it's lame to reply to yourself, but I thought of a potential replacement.
"Consider for a moment your life outside the scope of the presidency. In other words, Senator Kerry should consider this as though he wasn't running for the presidency and had no plans to, and President Bush should consider this as though he were not the president anymore. What is life about? What makes you tick; what is most important?"
Yup. It was on national television back when Bush was a candidate for the first time.
Agreed. I'm not so interested in the "national debt" either. I *would* be interested to know each candidate's take on technology outsourcing, though. Seems like most slashdotters would be interested also.
I would rephrase this way: What do you see as the biggest difference between your approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the approach of your opponent? What parts of your approach do you believe will be more effective/positive/longlasting/ and in what ways?
I like this question, particularly the "why" part.
The current presidential system seems to have several shortcomings, including two-party duopoly and the ability to win the Election even after losing the popular vote. This hardly seems democratic.
I have two issues here. Firstly, the two-party system was by design and has its benefits. It is not a historical mistake to be corrected (ok, really three things. The electoral college was also not a mistake). Secondly, the US is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Democracy was intentionally avoided. It is actually a well thought out question and surely sincere, although not well informed.
First of all, you should be drawn and quartered for using all-caps the way you did.
...and they have HIGH labor costs--they have minimum wages levels of like $12/hour
Labor costs are the PROFITS of the worker.
You are sorely mistaken on this point. Labor costs only hurt the business that workers work for; they don't benefit the worker in any way. Particularly when you're talking about labor costs in the for of taxes, there's no benefit to the worker. Hurting the business a worker works for is of course a negative thing. Ever heard of layoffs?
Look, the highest standards of living in the world are in the social demcracies of Europe...
Measuring the "standard of living" is a totally impossible thing to do. Different people have different priorities and mean different things when they say "standard of living". Is the gap between rich and poor in Sweden lower than in the US? You betcha. Would I rather live there than in the US? You're out of your mind.
I don't think that number is right. But those European nations do have higher minimum wages than in the US; they also have higher unemployment, lower job growth and lower overall economic growth. Go figure.
Fortunately, over 90% of Americans are WORKERS. Your problem is that you have been tricked by investor/corporate propaganda into thinking that YOU are an INVESTOR
Did you know that over 85% of all statistics are made up? Almost everyone I know is an investor of some sort. Do you have a savings account? Thne you're an investor. Ever heard of employee stock programs? Employee ownership programs?
The reason the 3rd world IS the 3rd world is that they have LOW LABOR COSTS. That is the DEFINTION of being 3rd world.
Wow, that's a pretty strict definition of 3rd world. If that's the only definition, then the US should strive to be 3rd world.
The reason many of the countries in NW Europe have the highest quality of life is because they have the HIGHEST COST OF LABOR. And it aint no accident. The two concepts are DIRECTLY RELATED.
I don't think you even know what the term "cost of labor" even means. Go troll somewhere else.
Traffic cameras would have the same effect as police. Slow down around them, then speed up when out of range :)
The difference is that cameras would be much cheaper than paying a policeman and operating a vehicle for 40 hours a week, and you could get *much*, *MUCH* better coverage (e.g., one a policeman pulls someone over, he can't do anything about anyone else until he's done there, where a camera likely not miss a speeder unless there were something obstructing it's view of an entire car).
This makes sense once you relize that accident are caused by people not paying attention. How is a traffic camera supposed to make these people suddenly start paying attention?
The anecdotal evidence (and of course, as usual, there is no intelligent agrument to be had here outside of anectodal evidence) of my argument is this: if my town had traffic cameras littered throughout the city and I knew that speeding/running lights would result in a ticket 95% of the time, I would be more aware --- generally speaking --- of my driving and make darn sure I don't speed or run lights. I think most people would probably react in the same way.
Not to mention the fact that when intersection light go in, they almost always shorten the yellow light period to make more money from tickets.
That's a red herring. You're not supposed to run yellow lights any more than you're supposed to run red lights. Besides, if they wanted to make more money from tickets, they'd forget about the stupid lights and install cameras!
sure, it would infuriate people for a while. Eventually though, after paying a bunch of tickets and realizing that it's a whole lot cheaper to just follow the speed limit, people would stop being infuriated and slow down.
It's interesting to me how people react to the idea of a city putting up cameras to catch people speeding (which could easily be done in such a way that there is no loss of privacy over the amount of privacy we now have on the road) versus the reaction that people have to the idea of car insurance companies putting black boxes in their cars. There is *far* more privacy loss involved in the black boxes than there would be with traffic cameras, and the traffic cameras would probably actually do more to "encourage" safe driving.
If a system administrator is doing the things necessary to reasonable secure a system, passwords are almost irrelevant, up to a stupid password like "password". As long as users don't pick something that an attacker can pick out of thin air (or a dictionary attack), and as long as a sys admin is doing a reasonable job, passwords should not have to grow in length and frequency of change.
Just my 2 cents.
The power of linux is not "the power of linux apps", and so linux apps running on Solaris will not really make that big a difference for Sun.
This is exactly right. People get into major problems because they don't bother to read the contract/agreement that is given to them so they don't inconvenience the recruiter/interviewer by making them wait.
I don't have a lot of experience in this area, but I've heard that *lots* of employers are willing to change employee agreements if you make reasonable requests.