Hey! That metric system is defined in relation to us. I don't know what kind of backwards world you live in, Frenchie, but a gram is exactly 0.002205 lbs.
Sounds to me like you didn't approach the question in the way they were looking for. My first question, when you are examining for a sysadmin job and you ask me a question about search algorithm efficiency is, "Sure, I can do this, but why would I struggle through it when I can ask someone who does it 10 hours a day every day to do it for me?" Remember, it's a company all about finding answers in the quickest way possible; asking the right question of the right source is the important part, not having the answer at your fingertips.
Remember: no matter how little life you have, I by inference must have less.
Partially, of course, as a result of spending finals week going through the same level again and again throwing prox mines around and hoping THIS TIME they will blow everything up the right way.
I still remember coming up to the top of those stairs, headshotting three or four guards in a row, running through, tossing the mines, exploding them midair, and knowing it was all instants from perfect... But I couldn't tell you the difference between First and Second Normal Form to save my life.
My point is that if we were to plan for the future with the technologies we have in hand, we would need a lot more energy to run them all. Without excessive increase in energy generation capacity, there is trouble. Ergo, the more pressing problem than space travel is to harness the energy generation problems available as well as work on the social problems which have been incurred by higher population density. Space exploration will not help us solve these problems, and has been used as a red herring.
This would be true if a: People got along, and b: people consistently produced enough for their consumption where they lived. Neither is true. As it is, for the high level of consumption we have combined with the population size, we're already coming up to a breaking point on food and clean water.
I apologize for being a bit of a jerk here, but there are a few other things done by your generation which make Space Exploration not as big a deal to mine. (I'm slightly outside of the iPod age group) The world has changed extensively and definitively for a thousand reasons.
EX: I could eventually figure out how to build myself a radio. With enough time and patience I could assemble all the parts off of the internet. Then, I'd need to put together a workshop. Where? Oh, yeah, in my little studio apartment. (that's changed a bit) Population density's a little higher than it used to be, so I'm spending a much higher percentage of my income supporting myself. Hrm. So I have myself a radio that cost me extremely valuable time. It's about the size of a coffee cup, the first time. I've just spent fourty hours at least putting together something that I think is cool, but for about twice the money and a hundredth the effort, I can order an iPod and just collect the music.
Realistically, I will never be able to build myself anything with the level of functionality an iPod has. Even understanding exactly what all the components inside do is probably a level of knowledge and detail unattainable to the vast majority of the populace - even at Apple. I've known people at Intel who didn't know much more than their tiny little piece of a tiny subprocessor set in any detail.
Second, Space was a lot different in the sixties. The Golden Age of science fiction had just passed. Part of the dream had been that there were people, or plants, or SOMETHING on Venus. Now we're pretty damn sure that if there's life out there, we're not going to get to see it in our natural lifetimes unless we're one of the strange and isolated few picked to get frozen and never come back. How many of those would there be and how likely is it if you were willing you'd get to go?
Add to this that the problems being faced on Earth in modern cultures right now are all these extremely depressing, boring, entropy-and-politics-related ones, and you have a bad environment for anyone who has a brain to be thinking about space exploration as a career. The dreams of space exploration your generation had were wonderful, but the reality is that unless someone figures out FTL travel of some kind, we're stuck here. If we're stuck here, we have a whole mess of ugly problems to fix; the first two of which are energy generation and overpopulation. Space exploration would solve the second if the first went away, as long as that pesky relativity stuff just poofed. But space exploration now - as it is being used by the current administration - is just a red herring to keep eyes off of the fact that their record on science is one of polluting the good in the name of profit.
Which brings me, of course, to the problems which are actually BIGGER than the 'measley' problems caused by the laws of physics. The organizational ineffectiveness brought to life in the last fifty years is amazing. Bureaucracy has fluorished. And normally, people would be independent enough - they certainly have these urges, especially in America - to just watch bureaucracies die their slow deaths of ineptitude and be rebuilt. Unfortunately, computers have propped up inept companies and people by allowing them to take control over larger and larger groups of people. To the point where so many people are working for malfunctioning organizations that they are in control of necessary resources.
There are problems to be solved here first. Getting to Alpha Centauri and being able to build a colony there would be great. But that's icing on a cake that's rotting at the moment. So quit complaining about whipper snappers not caring about space. The smart ones are looking at the ground and saying, "Damn. Why'd you leave me all this to deal with?" And stuck wondering about where to find a lever to start fixing it.
I'd like to see them both fail for their restrictive DRM, but they won't. So instead I'd like to see them fail for their pathetic and petty infighting reminiscent of Betamacs and VHS. Anyone over the age of 40 I've talked to about the two formats has said, "What, you mean like Betamacs and VHS?" Just keep telling people that that's what this reminds you of, and wait for someone to start selling a less draconian product. You'll have a long wait, but the moral high ground anyways.
Because to profit on writing anti-virus software you have to have a lot of financial backing, and it takes a lot of patience. If you get steal an identity, it can be a major windfall tomorrow. To write good antivirus software, you have to compete with a bunch of people who are attempting to monopolize the market and have the credentials. And be able to advertise. It's just a lot easier overall to steal large chunks of cash from stupid Americans.
This is only true if the product is not one of the flawless Microsoft launches we've come to expect. I mean, hasn't it been like FOREVER since there was a buggy launch of M$ software?
I hate to burst your bubble, but the quote in your sig was originally in The Godfather and therefore is a Don Corleone quote rather than Don Henley. And the text is, "A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a million men with guns." Unless, of course, Henley said it long before Puzo wrote it in 1969. (before the Eagles got together)
Post grad, I would suggest going back and doing some of the basic work regardless. I don't have a degree in CS, (Mainly because I flunked out drunk) but despite the link previously handed (interesting read, by the way)) but knowing a bit about how data tends to be organized and how operating systems tend to work and how architecture tends to be built helps in everything I do. I know I sound like a 'racecar driver programmer' when I say it that way. Because, of course, I am a bit of one.
But here's my argument. Computer problems, when abstracted, often end up being very much alike. If you learn to attack them methodically and your method includes acquiring as much external knowledge as possible, the way you solve both small and large problems will be the same. However, since large problems are composites of many, many small problems, the solutions to large problems will simply grow out of your knowledge of the small ones. And, if you know how to solve all the little problems, you not only have a larger 'toolbox' of solutions, you also have the capability to know what tools are being used to solve the problems you aren't solving yourself.
I personally feel that noone should be an architect without years of programming experience. I've seen too many people who thought they would be good at the architecture side of things screw up too badly. That doesn't mean, however, that in each and every one of the places I have ever worked there was someone that shouldn't be in that hat sitting there as well as someone that should be in that hat watching them screw up royally.
I've actually had tests in the last year and a half where there was a, "Code THIS in C++ / C# / Java / Whatever," or, "Write out how an insert on a B-Tree works." No biggie to me. Unfortunately, since I've been kinda learning four or five programming languages at once for the last year and a half, syntax is a real pain. In retrospect, I am not sure if any of the companies involved were companies I would like to work for.
Regardless, I enjoyed the tests because they were interesting and helped me learn a thing or two, I guess. After I didn't know all the answers, I went off and looked them up.
Blogs are a form of news reporting, news is commerce and has been for years. Ergo, any kind of argument that a 'personal blog' has nothing to do with commerce is a horrible one.
I'm not going to say that the quality of an argument doesn't mean anything in Texas.
I'm not going to say that the quality of an argument doesn't mean anything in Texas.
D'oh. Here it comes.
'Reality Based Sources' show that the quality of arguments has no effect on their validity in Texas.
The neato thing about bottlenecks is there's always a new one. In this case I would say it would end up being price, and you'd use this memory as another cache above your HD.... The current on-die -> memory -> HD setup would be effectively superceded by a on-die -> memory -> this stuff -> HD. Unless enough price / GB could be achieved with the newer technology.
My guess is that we're not going to be going without moving parts in large-scale storage for quite a while. And people are going to want more and more data availability as video becomes more pervasive. So long term much larger cache sizes will be necessary.
Nevertheless, you started out loving your work or you would not have been able to acquire all the knowledge required to accomplish the tasks you needed to. If you don't start out loving what you did, there would be no way to do it as effectively as submitter requests. And if you're asking how to start learning to build an emulator, (a design task I personally know where I'd start on, but have no desire at all to do) well, you obviously love it enough to drive yourself to do the work.
This is a computers / technology site. I'd have to bet on computers as a profession. Just a guess though, unless he happens to re-roof houses at 10k+ apiece.
Actually, I bet if I became an electrician or plumber I'd get a few hits off Slashdot. At least, if I weren't such a wanker.
I wish it could. I'd be really brilliant by now......
I'm not knocking the individuals working for Microsoft, it's just that there comes a point in the lifespan of a company where it's past its prime. Getting a truly 'new' product far enough to the front is a gargantuan task, that ends up requiring patents and huge investment because the entire process is so slow.
Let's just compare Apple and MS here for a second. Apple pulls stuff into the mainstream that's pretty new once in a while. They seem to enjoy it. It's been really profitable. But some of the stuff they do is so new that noone can really catch up until it's too late. (see: iPod, good UI, 'stylish' design) BR
Somehow, Apple listens to new ideas, where Microsoft attempts to implement old ones and takes flack for never getting it exactly right. One wonders where this cultural issue is in M$, and what makes the difference between the two. But that's only an academic question.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! That metric system is defined in relation to us. I don't know what kind of backwards world you live in, Frenchie, but a gram is exactly 0.002205 lbs.
Sounds to me like you didn't approach the question in the way they were looking for. My first question, when you are examining for a sysadmin job and you ask me a question about search algorithm efficiency is, "Sure, I can do this, but why would I struggle through it when I can ask someone who does it 10 hours a day every day to do it for me?" Remember, it's a company all about finding answers in the quickest way possible; asking the right question of the right source is the important part, not having the answer at your fingertips.
Looks to be ordered by revenue. Shows that games are just like movies - quality is not king.... Sad, unfortunate, unsurprising.
Remember: no matter how little life you have, I by inference must have less.
:(
Partially, of course, as a result of spending finals week going through the same level again and again throwing prox mines around and hoping THIS TIME they will blow everything up the right way.
I still remember coming up to the top of those stairs, headshotting three or four guards in a row, running through, tossing the mines, exploding them midair, and knowing it was all instants from perfect... But I couldn't tell you the difference between First and Second Normal Form to save my life.
Facility: 1:42. Best time I've seen.
It's all about the headshots and proximity mines.
More importantly, not all programs with two hands know how to use either one of them.
How extremely optimistic. ;)
My point is that if we were to plan for the future with the technologies we have in hand, we would need a lot more energy to run them all. Without excessive increase in energy generation capacity, there is trouble. Ergo, the more pressing problem than space travel is to harness the energy generation problems available as well as work on the social problems which have been incurred by higher population density. Space exploration will not help us solve these problems, and has been used as a red herring.
Ergo we agree, I think.
This would be true if a: People got along, and b: people consistently produced enough for their consumption where they lived. Neither is true. As it is, for the high level of consumption we have combined with the population size, we're already coming up to a breaking point on food and clean water.
BS.
I apologize for being a bit of a jerk here, but there are a few other things done by your generation which make Space Exploration not as big a deal to mine. (I'm slightly outside of the iPod age group) The world has changed extensively and definitively for a thousand reasons.
EX: I could eventually figure out how to build myself a radio. With enough time and patience I could assemble all the parts off of the internet. Then, I'd need to put together a workshop. Where? Oh, yeah, in my little studio apartment. (that's changed a bit) Population density's a little higher than it used to be, so I'm spending a much higher percentage of my income supporting myself. Hrm. So I have myself a radio that cost me extremely valuable time. It's about the size of a coffee cup, the first time. I've just spent fourty hours at least putting together something that I think is cool, but for about twice the money and a hundredth the effort, I can order an iPod and just collect the music.
Realistically, I will never be able to build myself anything with the level of functionality an iPod has. Even understanding exactly what all the components inside do is probably a level of knowledge and detail unattainable to the vast majority of the populace - even at Apple. I've known people at Intel who didn't know much more than their tiny little piece of a tiny subprocessor set in any detail.
Second, Space was a lot different in the sixties. The Golden Age of science fiction had just passed. Part of the dream had been that there were people, or plants, or SOMETHING on Venus. Now we're pretty damn sure that if there's life out there, we're not going to get to see it in our natural lifetimes unless we're one of the strange and isolated few picked to get frozen and never come back. How many of those would there be and how likely is it if you were willing you'd get to go?
Add to this that the problems being faced on Earth in modern cultures right now are all these extremely depressing, boring, entropy-and-politics-related ones, and you have a bad environment for anyone who has a brain to be thinking about space exploration as a career. The dreams of space exploration your generation had were wonderful, but the reality is that unless someone figures out FTL travel of some kind, we're stuck here. If we're stuck here, we have a whole mess of ugly problems to fix; the first two of which are energy generation and overpopulation. Space exploration would solve the second if the first went away, as long as that pesky relativity stuff just poofed. But space exploration now - as it is being used by the current administration - is just a red herring to keep eyes off of the fact that their record on science is one of polluting the good in the name of profit.
Which brings me, of course, to the problems which are actually BIGGER than the 'measley' problems caused by the laws of physics. The organizational ineffectiveness brought to life in the last fifty years is amazing. Bureaucracy has fluorished. And normally, people would be independent enough - they certainly have these urges, especially in America - to just watch bureaucracies die their slow deaths of ineptitude and be rebuilt. Unfortunately, computers have propped up inept companies and people by allowing them to take control over larger and larger groups of people. To the point where so many people are working for malfunctioning organizations that they are in control of necessary resources.
There are problems to be solved here first. Getting to Alpha Centauri and being able to build a colony there would be great. But that's icing on a cake that's rotting at the moment. So quit complaining about whipper snappers not caring about space. The smart ones are looking at the ground and saying, "Damn. Why'd you leave me all this to deal with?" And stuck wondering about where to find a lever to start fixing it.
On Soviet Slashdot, the unbelievably old joke ends you.
I'd like to see them both fail for their restrictive DRM, but they won't. So instead I'd like to see them fail for their pathetic and petty infighting reminiscent of Betamacs and VHS. Anyone over the age of 40 I've talked to about the two formats has said, "What, you mean like Betamacs and VHS?" Just keep telling people that that's what this reminds you of, and wait for someone to start selling a less draconian product. You'll have a long wait, but the moral high ground anyways.
Because to profit on writing anti-virus software you have to have a lot of financial backing, and it takes a lot of patience. If you get steal an identity, it can be a major windfall tomorrow. To write good antivirus software, you have to compete with a bunch of people who are attempting to monopolize the market and have the credentials. And be able to advertise. It's just a lot easier overall to steal large chunks of cash from stupid Americans.
I read Slashdot for the pictures. And that's a picture of one ugly building.
This is only true if the product is not one of the flawless Microsoft launches we've come to expect. I mean, hasn't it been like FOREVER since there was a buggy launch of M$ software?
I hate to burst your bubble, but the quote in your sig was originally in The Godfather and therefore is a Don Corleone quote rather than Don Henley. And the text is, "A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a million men with guns." Unless, of course, Henley said it long before Puzo wrote it in 1969. (before the Eagles got together)
Post grad, I would suggest going back and doing some of the basic work regardless. I don't have a degree in CS, (Mainly because I flunked out drunk) but despite the link previously handed (interesting read, by the way)) but knowing a bit about how data tends to be organized and how operating systems tend to work and how architecture tends to be built helps in everything I do. I know I sound like a 'racecar driver programmer' when I say it that way. Because, of course, I am a bit of one.
But here's my argument. Computer problems, when abstracted, often end up being very much alike. If you learn to attack them methodically and your method includes acquiring as much external knowledge as possible, the way you solve both small and large problems will be the same. However, since large problems are composites of many, many small problems, the solutions to large problems will simply grow out of your knowledge of the small ones. And, if you know how to solve all the little problems, you not only have a larger 'toolbox' of solutions, you also have the capability to know what tools are being used to solve the problems you aren't solving yourself.
I personally feel that noone should be an architect without years of programming experience. I've seen too many people who thought they would be good at the architecture side of things screw up too badly. That doesn't mean, however, that in each and every one of the places I have ever worked there was someone that shouldn't be in that hat sitting there as well as someone that should be in that hat watching them screw up royally.
I've actually had tests in the last year and a half where there was a, "Code THIS in C++ / C# / Java / Whatever," or, "Write out how an insert on a B-Tree works." No biggie to me. Unfortunately, since I've been kinda learning four or five programming languages at once for the last year and a half, syntax is a real pain. In retrospect, I am not sure if any of the companies involved were companies I would like to work for.
Regardless, I enjoyed the tests because they were interesting and helped me learn a thing or two, I guess. After I didn't know all the answers, I went off and looked them up.
Blogs are a form of news reporting, news is commerce and has been for years. Ergo, any kind of argument that a 'personal blog' has nothing to do with commerce is a horrible one.
I'm not going to say that the quality of an argument doesn't mean anything in Texas.
I'm not going to say that the quality of an argument doesn't mean anything in Texas.
D'oh. Here it comes.
'Reality Based Sources' show that the quality of arguments has no effect on their validity in Texas.
There. I just couldn't resist.
The neato thing about bottlenecks is there's always a new one. In this case I would say it would end up being price, and you'd use this memory as another cache above your HD.... The current on-die -> memory -> HD setup would be effectively superceded by a on-die -> memory -> this stuff -> HD. Unless enough price / GB could be achieved with the newer technology.
My guess is that we're not going to be going without moving parts in large-scale storage for quite a while. And people are going to want more and more data availability as video becomes more pervasive. So long term much larger cache sizes will be necessary.
Nevertheless, you started out loving your work or you would not have been able to acquire all the knowledge required to accomplish the tasks you needed to. If you don't start out loving what you did, there would be no way to do it as effectively as submitter requests. And if you're asking how to start learning to build an emulator, (a design task I personally know where I'd start on, but have no desire at all to do) well, you obviously love it enough to drive yourself to do the work.
That's not outrageously cheap at all. I buy bandwidth for waaaay less than that. ;)
Um.
This is a computers / technology site. I'd have to bet on computers as a profession. Just a guess though, unless he happens to re-roof houses at 10k+ apiece.
Actually, I bet if I became an electrician or plumber I'd get a few hits off Slashdot. At least, if I weren't such a wanker.
I wish it could. I'd be really brilliant by now......
I'm not knocking the individuals working for Microsoft, it's just that there comes a point in the lifespan of a company where it's past its prime. Getting a truly 'new' product far enough to the front is a gargantuan task, that ends up requiring patents and huge investment because the entire process is so slow.
Let's just compare Apple and MS here for a second. Apple pulls stuff into the mainstream that's pretty new once in a while. They seem to enjoy it. It's been really profitable. But some of the stuff they do is so new that noone can really catch up until it's too late. (see: iPod, good UI, 'stylish' design)
BR Somehow, Apple listens to new ideas, where Microsoft attempts to implement old ones and takes flack for never getting it exactly right. One wonders where this cultural issue is in M$, and what makes the difference between the two. But that's only an academic question.
You're right. It had been so long I had forgotten. I loved the pinball construction set. That thing was awesome.
There's another post above that mentions many of the exact same games - the response mentions the original developers.
Malfador Machinations has made some amazing games, but they may no longer be independent; I saw Space Empires V in Best Buy....