Nearly everybody gets this wrong. Depreciation is primarily a fixed cost (due to time) rather than a variable cost (due to miles); consider how much difference you get on a 5 year old car driven the average of 12,000 miles per year versus, say, 6,000 miles per year. The difference in the value of the car at that point is negligible compared to the amount of value you lost due to the 5 years of time you had the car.
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000440.html
I use both, and I'd say Java (and I'm a Windows developer). C# is fairly easy to learn coming from Java; and the people who say there's more developer momentum for it are fooling themselves - the amount of code you can look at, borrow, use, or whatever for Java is orders of magnitude more than for C#. A datapoint - I was looking for an open source toolbar replacement (Windows.Form control) for C#, and couldn't find squat. Try the same for Java and you'll find dozens.
And using Eclipse while writing Java code takes a lot more drudgery out than does using MS's Visual Studio for C# - they have a rudimentary "method completion" for VS, but almost everything else that Eclipse helps you with is lacking. The people who say that they're similarly helpful are obviously not using Eclipse to its potential.
I'd say it's very useful to know both, however - my company's actually using both on the same project right now. Despite the comparative paucity of libraries, many companies (and in my case, a part of the government) seem intent on using C# on the client-side even when talking to java on the server.
Yes, cyberlibertarians, the message here is that macroeconomics DOES matter. Talk to somebody who tried to get a job in Silicon Valley or Austin during the depth of the Bust.
And no, previous responder, the 2000 people laid off in one town can't all just become entrepreneurs. Many, as shocking as this is to believe, don't have enough savings to start their own business! (I know! They must have been profligate wastrels, perhaps overspending on their butlers and whatnot).
I was messy in my language about take-off charges.
The way it's done now (supposedly): by weight.
The way it SHOULD be done: by slot, or if you want to get really fancy, by the amount of time you tie up the runway.
And those slots should be auctioned off to the highest bidder every so often.
I think that system would result in a few more big planes flying in this country at the largest airports, where slots are scarce - and that would be a good thing.
I've tried to make the same case with my cow orkers, but they insist that there's no demand for jumbo jets (not even on routes like mainland to Hawaii), which is just exasperatingly obvious to me. Oddly enough, at various times, they claim that the hub-and-spoke system is the reason for relatively small planes being dominant in the US, and that the move AWAY from the hub-and-spoke system (i.e. Southwest) is the reason for relatively small planes being dominant in the US.
Personally, I think it's stupid for airports to charge for takeoffs by weight (should be charging by passenger or cargo load) - this in my opinion is the reason for the perverse disincentive for large planes in this country, since there's clearly enough traffic between many cities to justify big planes here.
Direct solar energy availability in the climates where it works best does indeed line up with peak power demand -- in the south and southwest US, air conditioning is responsible for most peak demand. With solar on roofs you get three benefits, therefore:
1. If you're home (and the A/C is set to 78, let's say), you're getting a good chunk, if not all, of the necessary energy for free
2. If you're still at work (and the A/C is set higher on a timer) you're selling energy back to the electric utility when it most needs the energy (and would otherwise be firing up peak sources like natural gas generators which are more expensive than the coal baseline most use).
3. Your house stays a bit cooler than it otherwise would due to less sunlight striking the actual roof surface.
That would match my recollection, which is admittedly sketchy. The WPS was built on a half-baked early release of SOM that in retrospect was not quite ready for prime-time.
My understanding at the time was that MS wasn't purely responsible for the single input queue, possibly not even primarily responsible. I remember hearing legends that big customers insisted that their drones be able to "type ahead" (i.e. plan for a dialog box popping up as a result of something they just did and type stuff that would go in it when it DID show up on the screen).
"CORBA" wasn't fully baked at the time and to my knowledge wasn't really part of the WPS architecture. Certainly the SOM guys were trying very hard to interoperate with and over CORBA but at that point it was just marketingspeak.
(I worked on the WPS one summer before 2.0)
Hate to burst your bubble, but that movement would have to be about one million times bigger than it currently is to even register on these guys' radar.
The mass media talk about "global cooling" was about a natural cycle taking hundreds of years to complete. The scientist talk about "global warming" is anthropogenic and over a shorter timeframe.
The analogy I usually use to explain why BOTH could be true is this:
Park on a steep uphill road in San Francisco. Put your foot on the brake. Notice that you're not moving. Now, release the brake, and notice you start moving backwards. Then, hit the gas and go uphill.
The global warming deniers would look at that scenario, based on their "logic", and claim that they've proven that gravity doesn't exist!
The continuing references to a supposed analoguous 1970s frenzy over Global Cooling come from the right-wing media in the US, and are not based on historical fact.
The continuing references to a supposed analoguous 1970s frenzy over Global Cooling come from the right-wing media in the US, and are not based on historical fact.
And I would wager that any statistics your buddies in the oil company come up with for the net energy per drop of oil aren't including the energy required to run the tanker truck, drilling rig, and whatnot. The fact remains - the claim that solar cells are a net energy loss is the only one which has not been supported here.
although, of course, while researching my followup post, the internet is full of comments that solar cell lifespan ranges from 25-35 years -- so at some point, it must occur. D'oh.
"A common myth is that the production of photovoltaic cells requires more energy than these cells produce in their lifespan. Modern cells typically require two to six years to pay back the energy investment made in them, and their lifespan is around 30 years."
Today's solar cells, even when well-maintained, eventually degrade to a fair bit lower efficiency than their original specs (I've not seen it claimed that they degrade to zero, however).
I worked on OS/2 1.x and 2.x (and 3.x), and you're wrong - 2.0 was released when it was because it had already been in the pipe so long. (It was rushed, but not because of Windows 95, in other words).
The thing which made it look half-baked (rushed) was the (relatively) last-second decision to drop the old shell and put the Workplace Shell on top instead. OS/2 2.0 with the old Program Manager shell was pretty darn solid and could have actually been released six months earlier. Should have been, in my hindsight opinion.
OS/2 scared Microsoft enough to drop plans for a much bigger rewrite and instead release Windows 95, and it was based on their fear of losing a chunk of the home market AND the big chunk of the business market that Windows 3.x had finally acquired them.
Microsoft's activities vis-a-vis the IBM PC Company show pretty conclusively that they viewed OS/2 (especially v3) as a threat.
Yeah, and we're still in the days where one programmer can start a game company. Give me a break. Modulo Chris Sawyer, the industry doesn't work that way anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Nearly everybody gets this wrong. Depreciation is primarily a fixed cost (due to time) rather than a variable cost (due to miles); consider how much difference you get on a 5 year old car driven the average of 12,000 miles per year versus, say, 6,000 miles per year. The difference in the value of the car at that point is negligible compared to the amount of value you lost due to the 5 years of time you had the car. http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000440.html
And using Eclipse while writing Java code takes a lot more drudgery out than does using MS's Visual Studio for C# - they have a rudimentary "method completion" for VS, but almost everything else that Eclipse helps you with is lacking. The people who say that they're similarly helpful are obviously not using Eclipse to its potential.
I'd say it's very useful to know both, however - my company's actually using both on the same project right now. Despite the comparative paucity of libraries, many companies (and in my case, a part of the government) seem intent on using C# on the client-side even when talking to java on the server.
And no, previous responder, the 2000 people laid off in one town can't all just become entrepreneurs. Many, as shocking as this is to believe, don't have enough savings to start their own business! (I know! They must have been profligate wastrels, perhaps overspending on their butlers and whatnot).
The way it's done now (supposedly): by weight.
The way it SHOULD be done: by slot, or if you want to get really fancy, by the amount of time you tie up the runway.
And those slots should be auctioned off to the highest bidder every so often.
I think that system would result in a few more big planes flying in this country at the largest airports, where slots are scarce - and that would be a good thing.
Personally, I think it's stupid for airports to charge for takeoffs by weight (should be charging by passenger or cargo load) - this in my opinion is the reason for the perverse disincentive for large planes in this country, since there's clearly enough traffic between many cities to justify big planes here.
All of you quasi-cyber-libertarians need to read up on the concept of the "race to the bottom".
AMD needs to wise up and stay away. Dell's wasted a lot of component vendors' time and money over the years with this strategy.
Direct solar energy availability in the climates where it works best does indeed line up with peak power demand -- in the south and southwest US, air conditioning is responsible for most peak demand. With solar on roofs you get three benefits, therefore: 1. If you're home (and the A/C is set to 78, let's say), you're getting a good chunk, if not all, of the necessary energy for free 2. If you're still at work (and the A/C is set higher on a timer) you're selling energy back to the electric utility when it most needs the energy (and would otherwise be firing up peak sources like natural gas generators which are more expensive than the coal baseline most use). 3. Your house stays a bit cooler than it otherwise would due to less sunlight striking the actual roof surface.
on google news. This is setting off the crackpot alarm big-time, as much as I want to believe.
That would match my recollection, which is admittedly sketchy. The WPS was built on a half-baked early release of SOM that in retrospect was not quite ready for prime-time.
My understanding at the time was that MS wasn't purely responsible for the single input queue, possibly not even primarily responsible. I remember hearing legends that big customers insisted that their drones be able to "type ahead" (i.e. plan for a dialog box popping up as a result of something they just did and type stuff that would go in it when it DID show up on the screen).
"CORBA" wasn't fully baked at the time and to my knowledge wasn't really part of the WPS architecture. Certainly the SOM guys were trying very hard to interoperate with and over CORBA but at that point it was just marketingspeak. (I worked on the WPS one summer before 2.0)
Hate to burst your bubble, but that movement would have to be about one million times bigger than it currently is to even register on these guys' radar.
Via accounts for a lot of volume at the extreme low-end, through their integrated S3 chips.
The mass media talk about "global cooling" was about a natural cycle taking hundreds of years to complete. The scientist talk about "global warming" is anthropogenic and over a shorter timeframe.
The analogy I usually use to explain why BOTH could be true is this:
Park on a steep uphill road in San Francisco. Put your foot on the brake. Notice that you're not moving. Now, release the brake, and notice you start moving backwards. Then, hit the gas and go uphill.
The global warming deniers would look at that scenario, based on their "logic", and claim that they've proven that gravity doesn't exist!
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No
The continuing references to a supposed analoguous 1970s frenzy over Global Cooling come from the right-wing media in the US, and are not based on historical fact.
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No
The continuing references to a supposed analoguous 1970s frenzy over Global Cooling come from the right-wing media in the US, and are not based on historical fact.
And I would wager that any statistics your buddies in the oil company come up with for the net energy per drop of oil aren't including the energy required to run the tanker truck, drilling rig, and whatnot. The fact remains - the claim that solar cells are a net energy loss is the only one which has not been supported here.
You owe me two minutes of my life back
although, of course, while researching my followup post, the internet is full of comments that solar cell lifespan ranges from 25-35 years -- so at some point, it must occur. D'oh.
"A common myth is that the production of photovoltaic cells requires more energy than these cells produce in their lifespan. Modern cells typically require two to six years to pay back the energy investment made in them, and their lifespan is around 30 years."
Today's solar cells, even when well-maintained, eventually degrade to a fair bit lower efficiency than their original specs (I've not seen it claimed that they degrade to zero, however).
The thing which made it look half-baked (rushed) was the (relatively) last-second decision to drop the old shell and put the Workplace Shell on top instead. OS/2 2.0 with the old Program Manager shell was pretty darn solid and could have actually been released six months earlier. Should have been, in my hindsight opinion.
OS/2 scared Microsoft enough to drop plans for a much bigger rewrite and instead release Windows 95, and it was based on their fear of losing a chunk of the home market AND the big chunk of the business market that Windows 3.x had finally acquired them.
Microsoft's activities vis-a-vis the IBM PC Company show pretty conclusively that they viewed OS/2 (especially v3) as a threat.
Yeah, and we're still in the days where one programmer can start a game company. Give me a break. Modulo Chris Sawyer, the industry doesn't work that way anymore.