Given the fact that England wanted to continue using the American colonies as a cash cow at the expense of the people there, and after we booted them out ~1780 - England came back and burned down our capital in ~1812 - and were again thrashed - so bad in fact that many British units count the battle of New Orleans as their worst hour - before they finally got the idea. (I won't go into how this seminal event influenced the dissolution of the British Empire over the next century and a a half.)
I would say turn about is fair play. Ironic how that role-reversal thing works, isn't it?
Nowadays that would be considered milking the cow for all its worth, but it was acceptable for his generation.
Many writers (even many contemporary writers) create consistent back stories for a given selection of novels. Some focus on one exclusively (e.g. J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth), while others have various contexts (e.g. Robert A. Heinlein's Future History, Lazarus Long, and World as Myth series).
If the concepts are bigger than can be contained in a single novel, then it is certainly acceptable and desirable to continue the broader story in succeeding volumes. This mode of writing is very common in science fiction and fantasy - and most fans seem to enjoy the continuity from one book to the next (look at the success of the Harry Potter series).
I think your characterization doesn't encompass the whole story - much like a novel that is a slice of a given world without any reprise - the readers are left wanting more.
I have found over the years that guidance is only required where interest is flagging.
There are a few subjects that are downright boring to me (nuances of psychology anyone?) - where someone must guide me by the hand, or I will not be motivated to learn.
I think this stems from a natural recognition that life is short, and there are literally trillions of subjects that I am interested in that I will never be able to cover in any reasonable fashion.
Ostensibly any species that manages to control the resources of their solar system (implied by the ability to traverse interstellar space) would have long ago abandoned the use of money. Why do you need money, when the autofusinator can create it for you using molecules in your environment?
You hit the nail on the head. I think if a site wants to be relevant in the future, they will need to be more selective about any adds they allow on their site; an add must be relevant to the content that is there and seen as useful to the users of the site.
You assume that everyone hates advertising as much as you do and thus, in the future, the trend will extend to the extreme...
I know it is not scientific, but most people I talk to have cable, and a DVR that gets used for two primary reasons:
1. To time shift their viewing of shows.
2. To skip the advertisements - 99% of which are irrelevant to them.
Ad revenue is overvalued precisely because people are starting to find alternatives that allow them to skip the ads on the internet in a similar manner. As a result I think this will continue to trend down to near oblivion.
I think people will find creative ways to get around this before the internet reverts back to the way it was in 1988 - but that solution won't involve treating the internet as if it were a television (think two-way communication versus one-way advertising -- context to the conversation, instead of using a shotgun to catch flies).
I'm just not sure how they cater for dependencies that are required for other apps as well... does it mean apps don't share any dependencies other than the system API's? Each app contains it's dependencies in itself?
As a developer - I don't see a problem with that.
Lets say I have two apps that use OpenGL...but different versions. Do I really want application B overwriting the global OpenGL library with an earlier version because it needs it to run - breaking application A?
Granted, that was a contrived example - but this happens all the time with Windows DLLs, and to a lesser extent on Linux (you have the option of keeping two versions of the libraries - and recompiling the applications point to whichever one they need)
If you do want to get your hands dirty for some things, but want other stuff to 'just work' -- try Slackware. It has a very large selection of packages - and I've had the best luck building non-supported applications on that system compared to using others (Redhat, Debian and clones, Mandriva etc).
As I said, wind is great but it needs to be backed up with hydro and probably nuclear to have a reliable system.
Okay -- this keeps coming up in these discussions: who in their right mind suggests that any one technology should be used at the exclusion of all others? Today we have Nuclear, Coal, Hydro; in the future we might have Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Solar, Geothermal etc.
I have to question the motives of the 'all or nothing' crowd...sounds like a FUD campaign to me when they go on about how this or that won't work because of some limitation. Why this negative focus, when the solutions are out there (solar-thermal, diversification etc).
"Always with the negative vibes Moriarity! Always with the negative vibes!" (my apologies to Donald Southerland)
I can only assume the people who are grasping onto one limitation ("no sunlight at night!") and holding that up as the reason we can't possibly move to a given alternative have some vested interest in seeing the alternatives fail.
I think creative thinking is needed now to address our energy problems - and a diversified approach (as your idea eludes) is the right approach.
Mind you you're not exactly the first person to realise that solar energy isn't directly available at night.
Actually, if you use a solar thermal plant (array of mirrors focus sunlight on a heat exchanger containing liquid sodium. The heated liquid is used to produce steam in a closed system, which turns a turbine producing electricity), the residual energy stored in the heat exchanger can keep the turbine turning during the night time. If you build these things in different time zones, and tie them to the same electric grid, you can ameliorate any limited drop in output during times of darkness.
So - really it is just a matter of recognizing the technical aspects, and having the will to execute the solutions and achieve the desired result.
One aspect that people who throw out all sorts of road-blocks is that the particular technology under discussion 'can't replace or be a primary source of power like X (X being their favorite/vested interest energy source). This all or nothing argument is just FUD: today we have a diversified energy infrastructure (e.g. coal, nuclear, hydro), there is no reason we wouldn't continue diversification using the new energy sources.
In Texas the established energy companies were fighting against building infrastructure to bring wind power from West Texas to central and East Texas cities - saying the build-out of transmission lines will cost too much (since when did they not pass on energy costs to consumers anyway?). In reality this is smoke and mirrors to conceal that they were concerned about losing their fraction of the energy dollars to these new upstart companies. In fact, the initial costs to build the infrastructure will be passed to the consumer, but the payback will be lower energy costs over the long run, and cleaner air as a side effect.
The Texas government just approved a 4.93 Billion dollar plan to build out the transmission infrastructure to connect the wind power in West Texas to the cities in the Central and East portions of the state. It will be the largest wind power project to date. So, perhaps, diversification is moving forward after all.
So I think it is reasonable to use the word caveat a) as a noun, and b) as synonymous with a notice, information and cautions surrounding the given assumptions that hold under most conditions - but not all. His wording could have been more clear perhaps, "...with this caveat: this does not hold in strong magnetic fields!".
Of course, if you buy this - caveat emptor: I am not a linguist by profession.
If you really wanted to speed things up, you'd try to eliminate the longest part of the key press: searching for the key...
I thought you were talking about a keyboard, hence my statement - if you touch type, then you don't have to hunt for keys; with enough practice that includes meta key bindings. Mastery of touch-typing would do more to speed up your text input than just about anything else, short of natural speech recognition (which has some hard problems associated with it - particularly in noisy office environments).
With multiple developers are you thinking in terms of code reuse/sharing? Or, are you basically compartmentalized in your own little development worlds?
If you work compartmentalized you run the risk of reinventing the wheel - that is, reimplementing what your partner(s) have already built.
Periodically you should get together with your team and talk about general purpose libraries that you have created, or see a need to create - and get everyone's buy-in on using, improving, and some standards around their location.
The APIs of your libraries should be very well documented - so your partners can use them easily for their parts of the project.
That being said, I am still trying to get my pardner to use the libraries I've created, and to put his own code for problems he has solved into it. To be successful you either need buy-in or the authority to set policy in this regard.
I have an early model CFL in my garage that has been going strong for 6+ years. In that same span of time, I can't recall how many times I've had to change the incandescent bulb over the front porch. The early style bulbs had 4 tubes that projected straight out - they were not at all shaped like a light bulb - like the newer ones today that corkscrew to create a 'light bulb' outline - hence why I couldn't fit one inside of my porch light fixture globe.
All the replacement bulbs I have now are CFLs, and as the incandescent bulbs die out, they are being replaced by CFLs.
As far as the quality of the light emitted - I can't tell the difference between an incandescent and a modern CFL - the CFLs in my house are not at all the same as the florescent bulbs in my office building - which seems to produce a greenish light - though it doesn't bother me as much since we moved to LCD screens; for some reason the old CRT screen refresh rates would interact with the florescent vibrations to cause noticeable flickering.
This is happening again with the latest jailbreak with people who have a very limited understanding of what they are doing running into problems they won't be able to fix, and I am sure there will be a lot of tears before bed time when they rush like lemmings to install the next official update over the top of their patched up date in a few weeks or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the fact that England wanted to continue using the American colonies as a cash cow at the expense of the people there, and after we booted them out ~1780 - England came back and burned down our capital in ~1812 - and were again thrashed - so bad in fact that many British units count the battle of New Orleans as their worst hour - before they finally got the idea. (I won't go into how this seminal event influenced the dissolution of the British Empire over the next century and a a half.)
I would say turn about is fair play. Ironic how that role-reversal thing works, isn't it?
I used to wander the streets of London at night with no ill effects. This was 1983/84...ymmv.
My understanding is NeoOffice is a Carbon based life form...
Nowadays that would be considered milking the cow for all its worth, but it was acceptable for his generation.
Many writers (even many contemporary writers) create consistent back stories for a given selection of novels. Some focus on one exclusively (e.g. J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth), while others have various contexts (e.g. Robert A. Heinlein's Future History, Lazarus Long, and World as Myth series).
If the concepts are bigger than can be contained in a single novel, then it is certainly acceptable and desirable to continue the broader story in succeeding volumes. This mode of writing is very common in science fiction and fantasy - and most fans seem to enjoy the continuity from one book to the next (look at the success of the Harry Potter series).
I think your characterization doesn't encompass the whole story - much like a novel that is a slice of a given world without any reprise - the readers are left wanting more.
Like I said, it could be easily avoided. There are many programming jobs out there that don't require the use of calculus.
And those jobs are the boring ones.
I guess I'm easily amused...
So far, I haven't had to dust off the calculus books. I work in the communications industry - discrete math has sufficed.
I have found over the years that guidance is only required where interest is flagging.
There are a few subjects that are downright boring to me (nuances of psychology anyone?) - where someone must guide me by the hand, or I will not be motivated to learn.
I think this stems from a natural recognition that life is short, and there are literally trillions of subjects that I am interested in that I will never be able to cover in any reasonable fashion.
For those that pay an extra 40 flurb...
Ostensibly any species that manages to control the resources of their solar system (implied by the ability to traverse interstellar space) would have long ago abandoned the use of money. Why do you need money, when the autofusinator can create it for you using molecules in your environment?
but poor parenting skills are society's fault.
By your logic I am responsible if you decide to rob the convenience store down the block.
I thought we were all responsible for our actions when we turned 18? That includes robbing stores, or parenting for that matter.
You hit the nail on the head. I think if a site wants to be relevant in the future, they will need to be more selective about any adds they allow on their site; an add must be relevant to the content that is there and seen as useful to the users of the site.
You assume that everyone hates advertising as much as you do and thus, in the future, the trend will extend to the extreme...
I know it is not scientific, but most people I talk to have cable, and a DVR that gets used for two primary reasons:
1. To time shift their viewing of shows.
2. To skip the advertisements - 99% of which are irrelevant to them.
Ad revenue is overvalued precisely because people are starting to find alternatives that allow them to skip the ads on the internet in a similar manner. As a result I think this will continue to trend down to near oblivion.
I think people will find creative ways to get around this before the internet reverts back to the way it was in 1988 - but that solution won't involve treating the internet as if it were a television (think two-way communication versus one-way advertising -- context to the conversation, instead of using a shotgun to catch flies).
You assume there are people reading this that know how to do that (e.g. assembly language programming).
I read your post and, honestly, I still don't know exactly what you're asking for...
Ditto. It is insane to expect rare boundary cases to get full support, and this is no different in Windows.
I'm just not sure how they cater for dependencies that are required for other apps as well... does it mean apps don't share any dependencies other than the system API's? Each app contains it's dependencies in itself?
As a developer - I don't see a problem with that.
Lets say I have two apps that use OpenGL...but different versions. Do I really want application B overwriting the global OpenGL library with an earlier version because it needs it to run - breaking application A?
Granted, that was a contrived example - but this happens all the time with Windows DLLs, and to a lesser extent on Linux (you have the option of keeping two versions of the libraries - and recompiling the applications point to whichever one they need)
If you do want to get your hands dirty for some things, but want other stuff to 'just work' -- try Slackware. It has a very large selection of packages - and I've had the best luck building non-supported applications on that system compared to using others (Redhat, Debian and clones, Mandriva etc).
For everyone else - stick to Ubuntu and the like.
As I said, wind is great but it needs to be backed up with hydro and probably nuclear to have a reliable system.
Okay -- this keeps coming up in these discussions: who in their right mind suggests that any one technology should be used at the exclusion of all others? Today we have Nuclear, Coal, Hydro; in the future we might have Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Solar, Geothermal etc.
I have to question the motives of the 'all or nothing' crowd...sounds like a FUD campaign to me when they go on about how this or that won't work because of some limitation. Why this negative focus, when the solutions are out there (solar-thermal, diversification etc).
"Always with the negative vibes Moriarity! Always with the negative vibes!" (my apologies to Donald Southerland)
Granted it would take 22 solar arrays like that to power all 107 million homes in the US (2001 census) if we tried to go by solar alone...
Why is everything couched as 'all or nothing'? Diversify - don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Today we have Nuclear, Coal and Hydroelectric.
Tomorrow maybe we'll have Nuclear, Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar, Geothermal etc...
That is a great idea.
I can only assume the people who are grasping onto one limitation ("no sunlight at night!") and holding that up as the reason we can't possibly move to a given alternative have some vested interest in seeing the alternatives fail.
I think creative thinking is needed now to address our energy problems - and a diversified approach (as your idea eludes) is the right approach.
Mind you you're not exactly the first person to realise that solar energy isn't directly available at night.
Actually, if you use a solar thermal plant (array of mirrors focus sunlight on a heat exchanger containing liquid sodium. The heated liquid is used to produce steam in a closed system, which turns a turbine producing electricity), the residual energy stored in the heat exchanger can keep the turbine turning during the night time. If you build these things in different time zones, and tie them to the same electric grid, you can ameliorate any limited drop in output during times of darkness.
So - really it is just a matter of recognizing the technical aspects, and having the will to execute the solutions and achieve the desired result.
One aspect that people who throw out all sorts of road-blocks is that the particular technology under discussion 'can't replace or be a primary source of power like X (X being their favorite/vested interest energy source). This all or nothing argument is just FUD: today we have a diversified energy infrastructure (e.g. coal, nuclear, hydro), there is no reason we wouldn't continue diversification using the new energy sources.
In Texas the established energy companies were fighting against building infrastructure to bring wind power from West Texas to central and East Texas cities - saying the build-out of transmission lines will cost too much (since when did they not pass on energy costs to consumers anyway?). In reality this is smoke and mirrors to conceal that they were concerned about losing their fraction of the energy dollars to these new upstart companies. In fact, the initial costs to build the infrastructure will be passed to the consumer, but the payback will be lower energy costs over the long run, and cleaner air as a side effect.
The Texas government just approved a 4.93 Billion dollar plan to build out the transmission infrastructure to connect the wind power in West Texas to the cities in the Central and East portions of the state. It will be the largest wind power project to date. So, perhaps, diversification is moving forward after all.
From Roget's Thesaurus:
Synonyms Within Context: Caveat ...
Noun: warning, early warning, caution, caveat; notice; (information); premonition, premonishment; prediction; contraindication, lesson, dehortation; admonition, monition; alarm.
So I think it is reasonable to use the word caveat a) as a noun, and b) as synonymous with a notice, information and cautions surrounding the given assumptions that hold under most conditions - but not all. His wording could have been more clear perhaps, "...with this caveat: this does not hold in strong magnetic fields!".
Of course, if you buy this - caveat emptor: I am not a linguist by profession.
Numerical input is so much easier on a numpad than on the number row.
- Not if you touch type.
The uber ripped children of the future will look upon our pathetic excuse of an existence and shake their muscular heads...
When you said,
If you really wanted to speed things up, you'd try to eliminate the longest part of the key press: searching for the key...
I thought you were talking about a keyboard, hence my statement - if you touch type, then you don't have to hunt for keys; with enough practice that includes meta key bindings. Mastery of touch-typing would do more to speed up your text input than just about anything else, short of natural speech recognition (which has some hard problems associated with it - particularly in noisy office environments).
Sorry if I misread your comment.
With multiple developers are you thinking in terms of code reuse/sharing? Or, are you basically compartmentalized in your own little development worlds?
If you work compartmentalized you run the risk of reinventing the wheel - that is, reimplementing what your partner(s) have already built.
Periodically you should get together with your team and talk about general purpose libraries that you have created, or see a need to create - and get everyone's buy-in on using, improving, and some standards around their location.
The APIs of your libraries should be very well documented - so your partners can use them easily for their parts of the project.
That being said, I am still trying to get my pardner to use the libraries I've created, and to put his own code for problems he has solved into it. To be successful you either need buy-in or the authority to set policy in this regard.
I have an early model CFL in my garage that has been going strong for 6+ years. In that same span of time, I can't recall how many times I've had to change the incandescent bulb over the front porch. The early style bulbs had 4 tubes that projected straight out - they were not at all shaped like a light bulb - like the newer ones today that corkscrew to create a 'light bulb' outline - hence why I couldn't fit one inside of my porch light fixture globe.
All the replacement bulbs I have now are CFLs, and as the incandescent bulbs die out, they are being replaced by CFLs.
As far as the quality of the light emitted - I can't tell the difference between an incandescent and a modern CFL - the CFLs in my house are not at all the same as the florescent bulbs in my office building - which seems to produce a greenish light - though it doesn't bother me as much since we moved to LCD screens; for some reason the old CRT screen refresh rates would interact with the florescent vibrations to cause noticeable flickering.
This is happening again with the latest jailbreak with people who have a very limited understanding of what they are doing running into problems they won't be able to fix, and I am sure there will be a lot of tears before bed time when they rush like lemmings to install the next official update over the top of their patched up date in a few weeks or so.
The moral of this story is know your limits...