Which is why ACM wants COMPARATIVE languages for 1-2 semesters. THe problem becomes when you spend your time learning a number of different languages when one language can be easily picked for most of the 100-300 classes. Obviously at 400 on, things change.
CompSci does not worry about a language. Instead, they teach abstraction around a base language, and will have one to two classes concerning different language (comparative languages). The problem is that languages popularity's change. What you want is fundamentals, and skip the garbage about what language de jour. Go with a program that uses a single language (the ACM base language is java, though it was C++ and before than it was pascal).
All depends on where you live. If you are in the west, yup, an OS will costs you several hundred to thousands of dollars (or euros). OTH, if you live in China, you will pay less than 5.00. Looks like CHina is valuing it just right.
I will never understand why ppl have to be SO against something just because they think it will interfere with what THEY want. Look, Wind is NOT going to replace Nukes. No how, no way. Can not happen BECAUSE wind is not base-load power. BUT Nukes can not do the job that Wind can. The reason is that wind, like most of the AE, is WONDERFUL for being DISTRIBUTED, as well as clean. Of course, I think that CLEAN coal should be developed along with all the other forms of AE, esp. Geo-thermal and Solar Thermal and combining these with clean coal. But it amazes me that so many ppl pit coal against nukes or AE and Nukes, when we need them ALL. The real problem for countries is when they depend on ONE SINGLE FORM OF POWER. For example, China, India, and Poland have HEAVY dependence on Coal and do not want to drop it. More important, NONE of them want to clean them up, or pay to clean them up. The majority of the clean tech is in America, and CHina hold 2 TRILLION dollars, but does not want to buy the tech to scrub the coal for its many emissions. Just amazing.
Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does, though. In 2008, Microsoft earned $17b in net income compared to Google's $4b. Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source software, but still, if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper. True, but MS's expenses and commitments are SO much higher. They have their hand in just about all areas of IT and fighting on all fronts (and slowly losing on nearly all fronts except for possibly X-box).
They are saying that it will be another year before being on Consumer goods. That is a long time. Hopefully, they make it available in a developer format before then (compilers, dev tools, etc). While it is targeting the net, they would be wise to have net apps developed before initial release.
That is because we had dems most in charge from 1933 until 1980. Since 1980, we have been going downhill. We will see what happens from here on out. The hard part will be that over the last 30 years, esp. the last 8, we have LITERALLY throw away our manufactuering capabilities. In fact, the entire west has been all too happy to let it go (though less so in EU). We need it back.
What was wrong with my statement? The amount of CO2 that Man puts out YEARLY is far far more than all the volcano's of the last century. I have checked it. Keep in mind that it is not recycling CO2 that is the issue. IT IS ADDED co2 that is the problem. And Co2 has increased more than 1% under man. Just because the total concentration is.0383 of the earth's atmosphere has absolutely NOTHING to do with man's influence. Care to remove your red herring?
Changing the jet stream by 1% impacting weather? I would put money down that it varies by more than 5% over the course of a year. 1% of anything is RARELY an issue, and I doubt that it will be here.
The problem comes when you depend on one thing and increase the percentage more and more. For example, the world current depends on Coal, oil and natural gas. It is adding FAR more additional CO2 than all the natural processes such as Volcano's, space, etc. Had we added only 1% new CO2, we would not have issues.
In the end, what is needed is a DIVERSIFIED energy matrix from various sources, ideally, geo-thermal, solar, wind, kites, tidal, nukes, etc. Once we no longer depend on one source, then we will not be so insane as to deny actions that are visibly, let alone scientifically, occurring.
He appears to be stacking his cabinet. In other countries, they are just corrupt friends on the take. But in italy, they are putting ppl in that are fun to be taken. All in all, I think that I prefer his, since he is in the open about it. Heck, the man always has a good women behind and beside him.
China is a MASSIVE mercury polluter. India is likely going to join that. Right now, about 1/2 of the mercury in the fish comes from China. Considering that China will accelerate the building of Coal plants, more will be added into to the oceans.
How about they make the tuna that does not sequester Mercury? That could save a LOT of lives.
What is wasteful about separating them? Suppliers are nationwide. Talking and viewing ppl cost the feds the same if the buildings are right next to each other or separated around the country.
I live in Denver Boulder area. When we shutdown Stapleton, we tried to obtain the Future Aviation extension of the Smithsonian. Basically, Colorado was told that if they made an attempt for that, they would be denied money for DIA. Instead, it was moved to Virgina (same area, same ppl, different tax region). The most bothersome part of this, is that those around DC fight this decentralization. Insane.
Not only does it lead to jobs (and corrupt powers) being in one location, but it also leads to ease of targeting. Right now, DC would be ground zero for a nuke from AQ. Of course, other prime targets would be San Fransisco, Houston, Chicago, and NYC, but D.C. would be the most crippling.
We should be decentralizing a number of federal operations. For example, the Smithsonian should be broken apart and distributed around the nation. It is a JEWEL that must be preserved. Having much of our gov. in one location is a disaster in the making. It is OK to put the HEADS of organizations in DC, but the works should be distributed. Basically, we should get to the point, where all major organizations have no more than 1000 ppl in DC. Some exception should be made such as pentagon, congress, etc, but things like Health, EPA, can and should be spread about.
Remember the DC-10 that crashed in IOWA? It took two guys trying to control it without hydraulics. Personally, given the choice of hydraulics OR electric motors, I would take electric motors. Electric is CHEAP AND SAFE to have redundant electrical lines. In addition, losing one, does not mean that you lose the whole aircraft like Walt Lux did in the AA dc-10 that crashed at O'hare. The problem with the Airbus is that Airbus designed the CPU to take control of the craft. If the pitot tubes are blocked, the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT. Since it still does not know the speed, it will continue to dive it faster and faster until stress ripped the plane apart. Sadly, this has happened on MULTIPLE issues with the plane, and had it all blamed on "PILOT ERROR". When this is done, I think that AA and several other companies will be suing the pants off Airbus for their design as well as hiding facts.
Why is that I think of China for the last several hundred years when I read your post? Likewise, why do ppl that we regard as intelligent (hawking) constantly call for getting man off this planet and on to others, while ppl like yourself call for doing nothing?
Here is a simple thought for you. China has control of several minerals used heavily in steel making. The chinese gov. has been refusing to export them, and will not simply apply an tax on them because EU and America was taking it to UN. Simply put, we have lots of minerals here, but many countries will control access to it to help themselves. Considering that Chinese Gov. is still in a cold war with the west (and it is), it is obvious to many that we will have resources choked off from us. Now, we are bringing the count of Nukes below MAD levels. That means that down the road multiple countries will be able to count on the fact that another nation can not wipe them out. Once we have multiple countries with nukes, of which none can destroy the world, AND you have China (and possibly Russia) trying to choke off resources, then I think that we can count on WW III. Think about it. If North Korea felt that they could invade South Korea, without being wiped out by other nations, do you think that they would do it? Of course, they will. Likewise, Chinese gov. has shown that they trying to get the upper hand in everything economic as well as military. In light of their constraints via population, it should be obvious where we are headed. OUR ONLY GOOD CHOICE IS GET OFF THIS PLANET, and get resources back to here.
Ares I was always a joke. I can not believe that we insisted on it. BUT, either Ares V or even Direct makes LOADS OF SENSE. Hopefully, Obama has more sense.
The problem is that for this to work, it has to be 2-way trade with money that adjusts FREELY. And with China, it is NEVER 2 way.
As to the economy, that is why I said to raise barriers SLOWLY. Give China time to do the right thing (free their money and drop trade barriers). It is far better to have full 2 way trade, then not. If they do not do the right thing, then slowly basic manufacturing will return to the west.
Yeah, I can not imagine why ANY POWER COMPANY would want to diversify their power matrix. It would seem to make more sense to simply build everything on just one type, like Coal or Nuke.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why ACM wants COMPARATIVE languages for 1-2 semesters. THe problem becomes when you spend your time learning a number of different languages when one language can be easily picked for most of the 100-300 classes. Obviously at 400 on, things change.
CompSci does not worry about a language. Instead, they teach abstraction around a base language, and will have one to two classes concerning different language (comparative languages). The problem is that languages popularity's change. What you want is fundamentals, and skip the garbage about what language de jour. Go with a program that uses a single language (the ACM base language is java, though it was C++ and before than it was pascal).
All depends on where you live. If you are in the west, yup, an OS will costs you several hundred to thousands of dollars (or euros). OTH, if you live in China, you will pay less than 5.00. Looks like CHina is valuing it just right.
to be pissed on. We just need to piss on a bunch of nickles to get things to work. Coooool
I will never understand why ppl have to be SO against something just because they think it will interfere with what THEY want. Look, Wind is NOT going to replace Nukes. No how, no way. Can not happen BECAUSE wind is not base-load power. BUT Nukes can not do the job that Wind can. The reason is that wind, like most of the AE, is WONDERFUL for being DISTRIBUTED, as well as clean. Of course, I think that CLEAN coal should be developed along with all the other forms of AE, esp. Geo-thermal and Solar Thermal and combining these with clean coal. But it amazes me that so many ppl pit coal against nukes or AE and Nukes, when we need them ALL. The real problem for countries is when they depend on ONE SINGLE FORM OF POWER. For example, China, India, and Poland have HEAVY dependence on Coal and do not want to drop it. More important, NONE of them want to clean them up, or pay to clean them up. The majority of the clean tech is in America, and CHina hold 2 TRILLION dollars, but does not want to buy the tech to scrub the coal for its many emissions. Just amazing.
Microsoft still makes 4X the money Google does, though. In 2008, Microsoft earned $17b in net income compared to Google's $4b. Now, $4b is nothing to dismiss, especially when you're using and writing entirely free and open source software, but still, if Google has deep pockets, Microsoft's are even deeper.
True, but MS's expenses and commitments are SO much higher. They have their hand in just about all areas of IT and fighting on all fronts (and slowly losing on nearly all fronts except for possibly X-box).
They are saying that it will be another year before being on Consumer goods. That is a long time. Hopefully, they make it available in a developer format before then (compilers, dev tools, etc). While it is targeting the net, they would be wise to have net apps developed before initial release.
When you have a young child in your house and a light breaks over the carpets, let us know how that goes.
the reason is that by having developers pick a new format, then clients will have to buy new equipment, which has it built in.
That is because we had dems most in charge from 1933 until 1980. Since 1980, we have been going downhill. We will see what happens from here on out. The hard part will be that over the last 30 years, esp. the last 8, we have LITERALLY throw away our manufactuering capabilities. In fact, the entire west has been all too happy to let it go (though less so in EU). We need it back.
Algae. They expect by 2020 to have 5-10% of the American market JUST BY THEMSELVES.
What was wrong with my statement? The amount of CO2 that Man puts out YEARLY is far far more than all the volcano's of the last century. I have checked it. Keep in mind that it is not recycling CO2 that is the issue. IT IS ADDED co2 that is the problem. And Co2 has increased more than 1% under man. Just because the total concentration is .0383 of the earth's atmosphere has absolutely NOTHING to do with man's influence. Care to remove your red herring?
Changing the jet stream by 1% impacting weather? I would put money down that it varies by more than 5% over the course of a year. 1% of anything is RARELY an issue, and I doubt that it will be here.
The problem comes when you depend on one thing and increase the percentage more and more. For example, the world current depends on Coal, oil and natural gas. It is adding FAR more additional CO2 than all the natural processes such as Volcano's, space, etc. Had we added only 1% new CO2, we would not have issues.
In the end, what is needed is a DIVERSIFIED energy matrix from various sources, ideally, geo-thermal, solar, wind, kites, tidal, nukes, etc. Once we no longer depend on one source, then we will not be so insane as to deny actions that are visibly, let alone scientifically, occurring.
He appears to be stacking his cabinet. In other countries, they are just corrupt friends on the take. But in italy, they are putting ppl in that are fun to be taken. All in all, I think that I prefer his, since he is in the open about it. Heck, the man always has a good women behind and beside him.
China is a MASSIVE mercury polluter. India is likely going to join that. Right now, about 1/2 of the mercury in the fish comes from China. Considering that China will accelerate the building of Coal plants, more will be added into to the oceans.
How about they make the tuna that does not sequester Mercury? That could save a LOT of lives.
Are you seriously suggesting that less than 75miles/110 KM is considered distributed?
What is wasteful about separating them? Suppliers are nationwide. Talking and viewing ppl cost the feds the same if the buildings are right next to each other or separated around the country.
I live in Denver Boulder area. When we shutdown Stapleton, we tried to obtain the Future Aviation extension of the Smithsonian. Basically, Colorado was told that if they made an attempt for that, they would be denied money for DIA. Instead, it was moved to Virgina (same area, same ppl, different tax region). The most bothersome part of this, is that those around DC fight this decentralization. Insane.
Not only does it lead to jobs (and corrupt powers) being in one location, but it also leads to ease of targeting. Right now, DC would be ground zero for a nuke from AQ. Of course, other prime targets would be San Fransisco, Houston, Chicago, and NYC, but D.C. would be the most crippling.
We should be decentralizing a number of federal operations. For example, the Smithsonian should be broken apart and distributed around the nation. It is a JEWEL that must be preserved. Having much of our gov. in one location is a disaster in the making. It is OK to put the HEADS of organizations in DC, but the works should be distributed. Basically, we should get to the point, where all major organizations have no more than 1000 ppl in DC. Some exception should be made such as pentagon, congress, etc, but things like Health, EPA, can and should be spread about.
What you hope for and what is reality, tend to be VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Remember the DC-10 that crashed in IOWA? It took two guys trying to control it without hydraulics. Personally, given the choice of hydraulics OR electric motors, I would take electric motors. Electric is CHEAP AND SAFE to have redundant electrical lines. In addition, losing one, does not mean that you lose the whole aircraft like Walt Lux did in the AA dc-10 that crashed at O'hare. The problem with the Airbus is that Airbus designed the CPU to take control of the craft. If the pitot tubes are blocked, the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT. Since it still does not know the speed, it will continue to dive it faster and faster until stress ripped the plane apart. Sadly, this has happened on MULTIPLE issues with the plane, and had it all blamed on "PILOT ERROR". When this is done, I think that AA and several other companies will be suing the pants off Airbus for their design as well as hiding facts.
It certainly is more expensive up front. But, I would not be surprised if they moved to a standard distro down the road.
Why is that I think of China for the last several hundred years when I read your post? Likewise, why do ppl that we regard as intelligent (hawking) constantly call for getting man off this planet and on to others, while ppl like yourself call for doing nothing?
Here is a simple thought for you. China has control of several minerals used heavily in steel making. The chinese gov. has been refusing to export them, and will not simply apply an tax on them because EU and America was taking it to UN. Simply put, we have lots of minerals here, but many countries will control access to it to help themselves. Considering that Chinese Gov. is still in a cold war with the west (and it is), it is obvious to many that we will have resources choked off from us. Now, we are bringing the count of Nukes below MAD levels. That means that down the road multiple countries will be able to count on the fact that another nation can not wipe them out. Once we have multiple countries with nukes, of which none can destroy the world, AND you have China (and possibly Russia) trying to choke off resources, then I think that we can count on WW III. Think about it. If North Korea felt that they could invade South Korea, without being wiped out by other nations, do you think that they would do it? Of course, they will. Likewise, Chinese gov. has shown that they trying to get the upper hand in everything economic as well as military. In light of their constraints via population, it should be obvious where we are headed. OUR ONLY GOOD CHOICE IS GET OFF THIS PLANET, and get resources back to here.
Ares I was always a joke. I can not believe that we insisted on it. BUT, either Ares V or even Direct makes LOADS OF SENSE. Hopefully, Obama has more sense.
The problem is that for this to work, it has to be 2-way trade with money that adjusts FREELY. And with China, it is NEVER 2 way.
As to the economy, that is why I said to raise barriers SLOWLY. Give China time to do the right thing (free their money and drop trade barriers). It is far better to have full 2 way trade, then not. If they do not do the right thing, then slowly basic manufacturing will return to the west.
As to the softwood issue, that is not a big deal. I am guessing that Canada will do the competitive bid sometime soon. As it is, Canada has been found in violation of a number of agreements over that. In the end, it is a small disagreement in the worlds largest trading economies.
Yeah, I can not imagine why ANY POWER COMPANY would want to diversify their power matrix. It would seem to make more sense to simply build everything on just one type, like Coal or Nuke.