Oh yes, and its worth noting that if you're not careful - easy deployment can quickly result in lower software quality. If you make deployment too easy quality drops like a rock if people think they can fix it easily the next day or even intraday. Some cultures reward by the # of releases/features in prod without looking at the total impact. 'Faster' is not necessarily better although useful in certain situations certainly.
One-step prep/audit/deploy/post-deploy audit/rollback/post rollback audit are critical and not dependent on your tool stack, pretty much any stack can be made to perform this function with proper attitudes/process design/automation. (also needs some break-point analysis ~ things like DB schema changes complicate roll-backs if you don't want to lose production data - some low latency design shops leave error checking out of certain high traffic code areas on purpose and they'll break on a rollback. This is also true of internal product dependency with multiple-roll outs that overlap, I'm sure there's many examples).
Where/what you check is situation dependent ~ ie name/value config pairs, binary checksum's, target env state/settings, do you have enough drive space, etc ~ depends on your particular organizational weaknesses.
I'm a big fan of buttons, downstream users tend to regress as you make their environments easier until button clicking is your final stop. Besides, humans make typo's, just accept it, buttons rock.
Meetings/forms - I'd recommend pushing most of this to electronic data entry that is prefilled based on use case ~ saves a ton of time/work, gives you clearly defined queues and gives you CYA all at the same time. I'm a big fan of really limiting facetime meetings that don't involve some type of problem related brainstorming on a whiteboard. The rest are typically low bandwidth information exchanges that are best communicated through data systems.
Nimble company - You can have nimble areas in larger companies, the data-driven ins/outs are critical in that, you'll never escape CYA in a large corporate environment, just build it into your framework and make sure to publicly display your KPI's, people will go after easier targets. You need a champion though, its lonely on the bottom.
elephants/peanuts ~ we usually talk about monkeys/banana's but that works to.;)
I didn't play the first version and bought the 2nd with high hopes only to be horribly disappointed.
-Quests are far too linear and repetitious. You can play this game quite "into your cups" and do just fine (and that's probably how it should be played) -Meh - some mildly funny stuff, Claptrap ruins it for me -The Guns are awesome, but the ammo stacking limitations are frustrating. To maximize the firepower you can carry you have to have one gun for each ammo type, which gets annoying. -Then wow the old AI must've been terrible, you can duck down behind a simple obstruction and the AI will totally forget about you. Just make sure you aren't LOS and in about 5 secs you're clear. -Depends on positioning, there are tons of holes in the scenario designs where you can fight up many levels without peril. In a standoff, as much as they try to create those, I'd agree that there's decent balance. -Sure they have enemy variety, but they all behave similarly enough that its gets boring quick. Renderings are excellent though.- -You can customize your skill trees to, but to balance the bad scenario design they try to bottleneck you into a play-style that really limits your options.- -No where near as good as many other games in terms of world interaction, you can have ammo but your ammo stack is limited to X of each ammo type, so you can't have all sniper ammo. Its really not that flexible.
FPS - if COD is a 10 this is a 4 Immersion/world - if Bethesda is a 10 this is a 2
Mostly I think this is just a boring linear shooter with good graphics (and you have to be a fan of that style of graphic art). Having seen the style of game 2k produces I'm going to skip X-COM now (and I'm a huge old X-COM fan).
My first few hours were so horribly boring I'm not sure I can pick this back up, but I'm intrigued by mechs and the mechromancer class coming up so maybe I'll check back in later.
Note: sorry if any of this is badly formatted, I don't post often
Health is a broad topic and it really comes down to what you're actually trying to achieve, 'staying in shape' is a really broad area (gain lean mass, reduce heart risk, age well, endurance, fast-twitch response, weekend athlete, don't throw my back out doing the lawn, etc), however, here's some general advice on overall directions:
Focus:
Work can bring you down, and when you're sitting down it can be hard to focus (or the opposite, if you've ever done a 10 hr marathon coding session, looked up and said 'damn'), relax, or keep a stable mental state (depending on your user base) ~ http://www.guidetopsychology.com/autogen.htm ~ is one method of staying focused and giving yourself the reinforcement that will help with the other steps (you can get it down to about 3 minutes front to back by the end of the cycle).
Nutrition: Other than a balanced diet (there's too much info on google to address that here) a good vitamin pack ~ http://antiaging-systems.com/a2z/beyondchelation.htm ~ can go a long way to stabilizing your diet and 'rounding off the rough edges'. I like the chelating package because it helps cleanse some of the crap that gets into the food lifecycle out of our system.
At work exercise: http://www.amazon.com/Isometric-Power-Revolution-Mastering-Lifelong/dp/1932458506 ~ is a solid reference on isometric exercises (many of which can be done at work) - optimally spread out throughout your shift (and some can be done discretely on an hourly basis). There are many isometric references out there so if you find this trend working for you then you should continue to do research until you find a series (with variations) that meets your specific (and evolving) needs.
You can get the info in the books above on the internet as well, but I like books for my library.
The above require the lowest investment in equipment that I've seen and still allow for considerable improvement and variation. There's no magic pill here, you have to really define what you want to achieve and keep learning to adapt your regime to your lifestyle/goals. Keep in mind there's a difference been an 'optimum' workout strategy and 'making a difference'. Doing 5 minutes of isometrics or a breathing exercise or two every hour at work isn't an optimum way to build muscle, but every little bit helps.
Has anyone else noticed how much Google's long term business plan seems to mirror that of Neal Stephenson's 'snowcrash' novel?
Not that this is a bad thing mind you, I thought the concept quite cool, but rather its interesting to see a straight sci-fi concept taken and built in reality (okay, with a few minor differences since google's primary engine still searches other sites instead of holding all data, but the main concept is still the same).
Most of the posts that I've reviewed on this subject seem to be in the negative so I wanted to post something that was a bit more positive.
I'd say training depends on your organization & culture rather than an IT standard, and even within organizations its not consistent. It really depends on the management staff to decide the culture on training, because even if your organization has no official policy on training, there are usually plenty of ways to 'work around the system' to get what you want for your teams.
Training also provides multiple benefits to both the individual and the organization. I'm a big fan of both training and cross training, and I don't mean 'sit down' sessions with people, I generally prefer programs that offer some form of certificate/degree/etc that both provide the company a solid point of reference from which to judge your skill growth and also provide the employee a 'valuation point' on their resume. I've seen the best value in organizations occur when the training level is high, as the skill levels and exposure rise the higher probability the people in training will create ideas or processes that return a significant reward to the organization.
A lot of the threads on this post seem to point to 'we don't have time to train' and that's just wrong, especially from a management perspective. Any organization worth its salt has enough data/metrics around its operations to be able to budget in some time for training every day and should build 'training programs' to encourage and push its people. It would be nice to assume that people would keep training and pushing their skills in their 'spare time', but not everyone is either that ambitious or has a lifestyle that accomodates that, so the best bet, to have strong teams and make progress as an organization, is to bring training into the workplace and make it an institution. If you're so slammed on a daily basis that you can't see straight and you're doing all manner of overtime, then you've got management issues (or perhaps you're working for a startup, which is a different issue) and prioritization problems.
Depending on your organization, training support might not be explicit, but its there, and the more you push for it, the more you'll find. If you're successful in showing the connection between training and increased performance/efficiency you'll suddenly find that your entire organization is adopting that mentality as well.;)
Strong training programs make the difference between organizations that are treading water and fighting fires and those that are building themselves to be ready for tomorrow's challenges and opportunities.
I understand your love for doing the actual work, but you can always take that up as a hobby (and really start to enjoy it again).
While there are a variety of factors that go into management and leadership, having expert knowledge of an area is always a contributing factor (outside of people skills, organizational ability, multi-tasking, understanding the broad business picture, etc).
Resubmitting your resume for the position (assuming you get it) gives you the opportunity to:
work with the larger business picture
work with other VP's to communicate the strengths and weaknesses of your division
work with upper management to make sure your reward system for your division is fair and just
work with upper management to be aware of future negative impacts and to minimize the effect on your area
Bring strong performers in your area to the attention of upper management
Begin projects that will help to increase the efficiency of your area (or reduce the number of bottlenecks, however you want to look at it
Organize your previous peers according to their strengths and increase the flow of information internally
To name a few...
The downside is, if you choose not to take the position, you have to do all of the above anyway (where do you think the new VP is going to get all of his information?) and you don't get the added benefit of being able to intercept and try to minimize negative events as they come down the chain (or being recognized for your efforts). Even layoffs can be minimized by giving people opportunities to transfer internally or get additional training (and these can be done without telling them layoffs are coming and violating corporate policy on such things).
Go for it, take the responsiblity, take on the challenge of learning new sets of skills and turn your engineering skills into your hobby.
Just a thought..
Best of luck.
By your arguments we shouldn't listen to technologists either right? Or are you not familiar with the concept of vaporware?
As a whole, financial analysts do quite well, or as with all things, they do the best they can. I would hope that you don't think all coders are incompetent because of the many problems with software out there. Some of which are majorly critical.
Developers do the best they can, Investment banks do the best they can, etc. Yes you've got bad apples and horrible mistakes and absolute blindness sometimes.
But does that mean it makes sense to discount an entire industry?
However, you're still missing the point. You can fiercly defend the anti-SCO side all you want, and I agree with you, I was asking for some open minds on the subject. Even if everything anti-SCO is 99% correct, there is always that 1%.
No, You've missed the point - I pointed out repeatedly that I don't think SCO has a case. What I have is an open mind.
I was just pointing out possiblities, sure you can refute my limited examples all day long, my point was that people on slashdot aren't looking for anything that isn't going to go there way.
That's dangerous. I never said SCO deserved it's ratings or that it would win in court.
I dont think they'll win either, but I do think that this crowd is dangerously one sided, and people on/. can sit around all day and pick out places where investments went bad (oh like the tech boys have never produced vaporware, right). But a lot of investments go good, or at least they go accordingly.
I was just throwing out some hypothetical things to look at- consider this, if 12/13 people so didn't read what I wrote and just went off on more SCO bashing, does that give you confidence?
Actually, we do. I work for an investment bank and IB analysts pull information from EVERY source. What technologists often miss, is that we look at it from a different perspective. Professionals don't care how cool a technology is or how miserable SCO's actions are, they care about the changes in future revenue this could cause, how far that revenue is in the future, the risk associated with achieving that financial goal and the different profit scenarios associated with each level of risk.
SCO might be a bubble, but with the attention it draws, it also has a very solid chance of not being a bubble. The larger investors will be watching this stock VERY closely and would dump it way before you have any idea that SCO is going down. One aspect in their favor for you to consider is that of all of the posts here I don't see anyone giving this argument any credit at all. That's the most dangerous sign I've seen yet and I hate SCO as much as anyone here, but I'm not blind either.
SCO could win this in several ways and no, it doesn't have to be inbred juries. The GPL has never been tested in court, I haven't seen anything indicating that this is 100% reliable. Losing that would be huge and the impact on the open source movement would be tremendous. SCO also might actually have a 'silver bullet' of stolen or misappropriated Unix code. There are good reasons why they wouldn't release this code. If they did, the Linux community would make sure that the offending code wasn't in the next kernal release (which would probably be all of a week in coming) and then SCO could only go after users for past use of their code. That wouldn't generate anywhere near the revenue that they will if they can catch the Linux community cold and then force you to pay them or abandon your IT infrastructure until a patch comes out. That's much more enforcable as well.
In fact, SCO's 'public letters' could all be a smoke and mirrors game, and the code they've released so far to endless ridicule here on/. could be a ruse to make the linux community overconfident and not look as closely as they should.
The author of this original thread had an excellent point - sure it's easy to dismiss them as non-technical people who read 'serious' magazines. But you're missing the point, you're talking about people who have made a LOT OF MONEY investing in companies, it's what they do. If SCO was just smoke and mirrors don't you think some analysts would be crying that? Surely at least one arbitrage firm would be setting up a short position (and yes you can do short positions while mitigating your upside risk). But I don't see any of that - before you accuse the 'other side' of reading misleading press check your own.
Now, you may be right, SCO might be full of it, but after seeing all the posts on this article and not seeing any actually talk about places where SCO might actually have a good point, I'm actually worried now that they might have a much stronger position than I had ever thought. Before this, I didn't really follow SCO, but now I'm very concerned.
The science behind finance and pricing and valuation at the large IB's is just as valid as any amount of technical knowledge you have, just in a different area. And I imagine people have been all over SCO's future and the potential embedded profit scenarios in their legal action and that's reflected in their current price. SCO isn't in the same situation as the internet bubbles, people have seen these types of lawsuits before, they know how to value them, this is not new. This concerns me.
I still can't bring myself to buy stock in SCO, but I'm very concerned know that they might actually have something.
You have a sound argument, but I don't think you're going deep enough:
Points: Oil
Get real, you're talking about a war that is going to cost >150 Billion dollars, do you really think we'll get that back from oil? Bad economics. If we wanted Oil, all we had to do was ignore Saddam and make him our buddy. He would've ditched OPEC in a heartbeat and we'd be up to our armpits in Oil.
Points: pushing our beliefs
Yes, they aren't pushing religion over there, so I suppose you mean democracy. The reason we push democracy is because we feel it makes people less likely to support terrorism because it makes people feel 'vested' in the government so it encourages stability.
My point: the US is the most powerful nation in the world - actually, we're more powerful than any combination of countries. Historically, the nation on top is always being attacked and threatened by other people, this is not unreasonable. Other nations have goals and they're doing what they can to achieve those goals, and so are we. You may not agree with the implementation of the policies of the US government, a point I'm not sure I'd disagree with you on, but the underlying policy is to protect US interest. Allowing a destabilized realm with access to money and a strong military interest to prosper is not insuring a stable world environment. I do not feel that it is unreasonable for our govt to look after our long term interests.
Do you really thing that people would stop resenting us even if we didn't get involved in anything? There will always be a reason, either we intererd in this or didn't support that enough. We didn't intervene in Kolsovo and stop the genocide so we're bad, we attacked Iraq so we're bad, we didn't spend even more millions to help people in other countries with AIDs, etc.
Do you have a historical example of a country that's ever been in our position that has managed it as well as we have? Did the French? English? Rome? Persian empire? I don't think so.
Point: health care versus military - isn't the health care argument also a capitalist versus socialist argument? IE how much health care do we give? etc. I agree that we need to work on our internal problems if we want to grow, but throwing more money at problems doesn't generate good solutions. Efficiency does. Before you hack at the military, hack at how slow and inefficient the 2 million government workers are because they've never needed to become efficient. The cost savings you could achieve by working in that realm would be more than enough to answer some of your problems because it would help achieve your goals by making them less expensive to achieve.
That same argument can be successfully applied to our military, we waste a LOT of money, but that's one of the things Rumsfield IS trying to change, but it's difficult.
I agree with the use of Green power - but a huge impact here is economical green power. That's massive. In addition to being a nice advance on it's own, this will add competitive pressure to other energy providers and solar companies to reproduce their results or achieve higher efficiences. Like this link: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive /MSD-fu ll-spectrum-solar-cell.html
Even as some companies lower the cost of the cells, although with lower efficiency, others are increasing the efficiency of other types of cells. This is a net win for the consumer in either case. It also creates very exciting long term prospects for the US economy (by far the most power hungry in the world)- lowering our cost of electricity would be a huge boost to our productivity and directly benefit the average american (increasing their lifestyle).
This is also the same company that announced it had fuel cells for mobile phones (with a 20 day lifespan no less) about 20 days ago.
Hmmm EUR stock as well with good currency appreciation potential and earning future. But then it's in Europe and their regulations aren't what one would call business friendly. Any thoughts on this?
Who would buy this stock? and who's willing to put their money where their mouth is?
I've found that anything I read for enjoyment, I read on dead trees. I'm a huge bibliphile and I just got Neal Stephenson's new book - in First Edition hardback, and I'm all happy. I wouldn't' dream of reading a sci-fi book on a computer (ironic eh?).
However for learning based tools - I never use textbooks anymore. Google rules for finding information, websites like WebMD.com offer outstanding sources of issue specific medical knowledge, etc. I wouldn't dream of relying on manuals to find information. The only time I pick up a hard copy is when I'm trying to learn a whole new process (like say, Linux) and then I'll go to it. You can't be the internet for speed, the ability to do a customized search and the almighty 'cut and paste'. Especially since through my university I have access to several hundred databases with one quick search.
Oddly enough, I'm also addicted for local events, movie times, restaurants, news (cnn/slashdot/bbc/newscientist) -etc, yellow bages, white pages, etc. The other day my SDSL connection went down and it took me a full minute to remember I could dial information and find out where the restaurant was located.;-)
Good point about the CRT though, I just bought a flatscreen and it's done wonders for my eyes, although I kept my CRT for my gaming machine.
For enjoyment though, nothing beats good old dead trees.;-)
One thing to keep in mind is that P2P programming actually encompasses a variety of functions that don't neccessarily include illegal file sharing.
P2P applications are also the siblings of cycle sharing, ad hoc networking and redundant data storage for backup and emergancy situations. P2P networks are used by the military to create ad hoc networks that are disaster proof and popular applications like SETI use cycle sharing to boost their available processing power.
P2P will eventually even find its way (conceptually anyway) into the way devices are designed with more distributed aspects to current systems that make failure of any part of the system non critical.
However, as this comment probably is referring to the file sharing aspects of P2P - I would say that it will be a constant tug of war between the regulatory agencies and everyone else who resents the sometimes (not always) userous fees and monopolistic pricing practices used by certain entities (and no I'm not just referring to Microsoft and the RIAA). It's like the Internet's own 'Boston Tea Party'.
There are an endless amount of ways that people can get around legislation to pursue file sharing if they want and even if the govt repeals all of our civil liberties in the effort to restrict file sharing people will still do it, the legal environment just can't keep pace with technology.
While equally dividing research is a good solution - my concern is that it's not being equally divided. I didn't propose that we stop space exploration, but going to Mars seems a bit much when the same focus isn't being evenly applied to other issues (like infrastructure).
I also wouldn't say six sigma is bunk - yes, the concept has been turned into a management fad, I see it in my workplace as well - but the original GE implementation definately raised the bar for quality control and allowed GE to generate higher returns/margins across their product lines.
However, I agree that these issues should be addressed uniformly, and if they were, I would think that the synergies between the two would benefit both (finding a power solution on the Red planet would benefit any automated facilities that were placed there).
However, they aren't balanced, and that's something worth looking at.
However, for what it's worth, I'll definately admit that space travel is a much more exciting topic to talk about.;-)
As far as the implementation goes I'd say your comments have merit, however investing in a national power grid and energy technologies (not just solar) would provide new technologies in the same way investing in space exploration would.
I was not attempting to say, space or energy. I was pointing out that maybe some things should be taken care of first here, given a priority as it were, and then use the efficiencies generated there to fund additonal efforts at space.
Similar to the way that businesses apply the six sigma formula to their operations, acquire a new business or enter a new field, absorb higher costs to achieve higher revenues, and then make the process more efficient to keep the higher revenues but brings costs back down to a reasonable level.
By your own logic on the benefits of space exploration, if that money were poured into altenrative energy, I think it likely we could find a very cheap energy source and a very dependable power storage system (not neccessarily using solar).
In the same way I didn't mean to imply a pure solar future (that was just an example) I also don't mean to imply to just stop at creating efficiencies in the power grid. I feel that our national infrastructure needs upgrading in several ways - (not all neccessarily by the govt - but perhaps aided by regulation) broadband, preventative medicine, education, etc.
So it's not power or space, or social security or running water. But it is more like, let's build an infrastructure to support future growth and then grow.
Why is it that you can look at the technology benefits of investing in space and not see the same technology benefits of investing in alternative energy/infrastructure development. Both will develop new technologies that enter the trickle down effect.
From my understanding - most large scale power storage is accomplished by pumping water into reservoirs in higher areas and letting them turn hydro power plants and produce energy - not the most efficient method but it does work.
I'm not saying that we should strive to be a solar powered nation, I'm saying that there are more efficient ways to spend our tax dollars.;-)
Not entirely, There are a number of different solar conversion methods available. One of the most popular is the salt chamber conversion method which delivers considerably more efficency than panels and provides for a storage mechanism.
http://www.solarpaces.org/technology/tower.html
However, going with your math, even if it took a much larger land mass (note that these studies were using arid states like Nevada as their proving grounds which also impacts your efficiency and weather considerations) wouldn't this still be worth it? Obviously, you wouldn't want to centralize all power generation for security reasons, but even then, are you questioning the merit of the principle of putting money into our infrastructure or are you questioning the implementation I prosposed.
Powering the nation isn't the issue, investing money in our national infrastructure that will deliver long term benefits is the issue.
If we can go to Mars - we can find a way to dramatically lower our costs here. Which one is worth more to our future?
While the lack of current infrastructure is a major problem, I would not encourage underestimating what our government has 'in the bag'. The level of technology the Defense department alone is currently funding is amazing, if you read some of the current SBIR's out there - (grants for research and development by the govt) the military is already looking for man portable plasma weapons and energy weapon defense grids.
I would hazard a guess and say most of the technology needed for the spacecraft already exists in abundance - and it just needs the neccessary funding and incentive to pull it together. A much trickier part might be long term habitation or the trip to Mars - due to the length of the journeys (unless they give the astronauts a really good game counsole), but the idea with landing units on Mars with automated manufacturing and collecting features is dead on.
The US Navy already has automated factories aboard all of its Nimitz AirCraft Carriers in an effort to reduce costs, I don't think it's stretching far at all to build a self building basic colony by 2014 on Mars.
My only concern here would be the cost - I've seen a lot of posts saying that a couple of billion is no big deal. Fair enough - but I'm a fan of efficiency. What if we spent a couple of billion to create an updated and efficient (and redundant) power grid for the nation, and built a solar field in Nevada to power the entire nation (I believe the figure is currently that a 5x5 mile field could literally power the entire nation)? Everyone could pay the same electric bills but have part of it going to a tax to fund future initiatives like space research or automanufacturing research.
Space exploration is exciting - but our current infrastructure needs to be rebuilt as well - instead of spending billions on high profile actions like Iraq and Mars (not arguing against the Iraq action mind you - merely the cost and the way the occupation is being handled) - how about stopping and working on our infrastructure (which was mostly built in the 50's) and using the cost savings from that to pay debt and fund future projects.
There are some good points throughout this entire thread about the cost and usability of the new apple line of computers (and not just the servers). I certainly give Apple credit for the innovation and style they've put into their product (not my taste, but at least they're original).
My issue with Apple, and I'm willing to bet it's fairly commonplace is that I still have a bad taste in my mouth fromm their company culture. IMHO the biggest strength of the PC is that everyone is developing for it - both Hardware and Software. Yes Mac is a 'good' computer, but my PC's (yes, plural) are just as good, totally configurable and 'evolve' over time. Each PC can run any number of OS and take any number of hardware components and work with a huge variety of industry wide components, giving me total price and function control. Same with software, you have huge movments in the PC world with open source operating systems, applications and now gaming and very little with the Mac. If one PC vendor goes down, its really not that big of a deal. Plus I continually scavange parts of my PC's to create more powerful models or models suited to specific tasks. This holds true on a personal or small business levels, and probably for most medium sized companies as well. A staff of a cost minded medium sized business (say a factory)can go out and check everything from ebay to refurbished parts to computer 'junkyards' and probably get what they need to maintain their infrastructure.
Jobs/Apple has held a very tight leash on Apple development for years - and will continue to do so. This is why Apple has the small showing it does, they really aren't suited for all that much, they aren't that adaptable and the software available is nothing comared to the PC. I don't see why Cringely thinks this is a mystery. Computer use starts from the bottum up, more people use PCs so more people are familar with PCs, PC's are more versatile for any use, so people are comfortable with PC's and IT departments are going to recommend PC's.
I don't see Apple's culture changing either, even their Idesk that another poster showed reflects a tendency to make a desk good only for one thing. Who buys that? 1% of users, perhaps. Mainstream? Unlikely.
Until Apple comes out of the closet and opens up and allows more development on their machines, on both Hardware and Software by outside groups, they will never be more significant than the communists who still run for president.
Apple has a great platform and a strong OS, it's a shame they keep is so tightly locked up so as to strangle it.
While I certainly agree with your position on schooling - it still stands to reason that the purpose of your primary education is to prepare you for life. And like it or not, times change, and our schooling must change with it. Our curriculum is quite outdated and could use a going through to make the time our students spent in school more efficient.
As far as social skills go - social skills are also a 'learned ability' just like typing. That would've been an interesting class I think.
Sorry, I'm just big on being time efficient. If we can't teach our children something truely valuable - why are we keeping them in school until 3pm? Or until the age of 18? To keep them out of our way? Because we say they have to to and that's final?
I didn't like that attitude at that age - and I wouldn't put someone else through it now.
I agree that children should learn handwriting at an early age, I do not agree that cursive still has a place in that learning process.
Cursive was created as a faster way to write back when people wrote a LOT because you didn't have to pick up your pen between words. It was a shortcut. However, cursive isn't that much faster and usually is very difficult to read. No one in any type of work environment would ever be allowed to submit or do anything in cursive because it's difficult to read, nor should they. The purpose of the written language is communication, clear, effective communication. Cursive no longer fills that role adequately.
What is the reason to learn cursive in todays age? What benefit does it provide? I do my signature in cursive but that's about it. Why waste years of education on it? If someone really wants to learn cursive, there are plenty of books out there on it. Don't shove it down their throats. Instead teach something useful, like typing. My 2 typing classes in High School have probably provided me with the most utility out of any High School course (except things like English and Math). I still type 100+ words/minute and the skill will become more important not less. With everything in the world going digital why shouldn't we replace cursive with typing classes?
School isn't supposed to be some old stuffy academics way of burdening us with their views on life, it's supposed to be a place where we learn skills that will prepare us for interacting successfully in society.
Don't get me wrong, yes I agree handwriting can be beautiful. I practice Gothic Calligraphy for just that reason, not only is it peaceful but I love the way the characters look - I think that old manuscripts have much more charm and characters than any book printed in the past 60 years (I'm also a bibliophile).
However, this doesn't mean I expect everyone else to have to be just like me.
This is similar to the thread slashdot had up a couple of weeks ago about 'base technology' and slashdot readers. Yes, I like researching old technology. I'm even planning on purchasing the AT Library just because I think it's that cool. But that doesn't mean I think all students should have to learn how to make brick and spin thread or operate a cotton gin.
I put cursive in the same light, imho the skill no longer returns the benefits that the effort to learn it takes, for the majority of people. Take it out of the schools and use the time to teach the kids something that will provide more value.
There are still plenty of ways to learn cursive if you want to, and I don't think anyone will argue that it's really a vital skill anymore.
Before reading this I would like to say that I am not recommending pirating or know anyone that pirates.
Having said that, The BSA's reviews are misleading for several reasons, but one that I never see mentioned is that pirating actually results in MORE software sales, not less.
How is this?
I've 'heard' of the following happening fairly regularly. 1. Person decides they want to try out a particular piece of software who has no knowledge (high school, hacker, middle age, etc - anyone).
2. Person sees what software they can get for free over the various channels.
3. Person downloads several different types of software to try them all out.
4. Person decides on a favorite.
5. Person proceeds to use software.
6. Person decides to use software for a business related function where revenue will be generated or their work checked.
7. Person buys software.
Note, in many cases, a lot of software purchases come from people who would not have otherwise had the desire to learn a piece of software (say music creating warez), or the funds to buy a professional piece of software (say windows 2k server, or office etc) but was able to develop the skills to use them. Once they can use them, then it isn't a stretch to purchase the software because you have the skills.
Pirating, in some cases may deprive software companies of revenue. But in many others pirating actually helps distribute knowledge about the software and increases the computer knowledge of the software in questions.
One of Microsofts chief marketing advantages is that their software is easily cracked. Why? Because everyone uses it - I would think that most students would especially fall into this category since they can't afford the products or are too young to have the means (high school/junior high) but kids who grow up using Microsoft products will buy microsoft products.
In fact, if fewer people pirated software, the market for software would be much smaller because fewer people would know how to use the software, and who pays $100 + to buy something they don't know how to use?
I've seen several articles bashing 'rediscovering' older techs at unneccessary but those people are missing a key point. Some of these 'older'concepts haven't been revisited in a while and could probably be improved by a creative insight with modern techniques.
A significant portion of our technology is based off of early 1900's designs. For example, the way we generate electrical power (ie heat + water = steam >>> turns turbine > spins magnet > generates electricity) hasn't changed since it's discovery. There are some newer areas (solar cells, fuel cells) but for the most part we power 99% of our society this way.
A lot of basic technology is still very fundamental to our culture and I'm glad to see people revisiting it - it's the only way to continually shock the technology base of an advanced civilization.
These advances can come from anywhere, so what if the SCA are rebuilding medieval style armor? What if one of them comes up with a superior chainmail and merges it with Kevlar, reduces the weight and sells it to the military?
How about new designs for soap? New styles of paper? Are the old ways the best? You'll never know until you research a couple. There were tons of expirements in radio control in the early 1900's many of which were abandoned because the technology wasn't there - how many of those could be useful now?
Do the funamentals of our wireless transmitters remain the most efficient way to transmit information?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes, and its worth noting that if you're not careful - easy deployment can quickly result in lower software quality. If you make deployment too easy quality drops like a rock if people think they can fix it easily the next day or even intraday. Some cultures reward by the # of releases/features in prod without looking at the total impact. 'Faster' is not necessarily better although useful in certain situations certainly.
Absolutely
One-step prep/audit/deploy/post-deploy audit/rollback/post rollback audit are critical and not dependent on your tool stack, pretty much any stack can be made to perform this function with proper attitudes/process design/automation. (also needs some break-point analysis ~ things like DB schema changes complicate roll-backs if you don't want to lose production data - some low latency design shops leave error checking out of certain high traffic code areas on purpose and they'll break on a rollback. This is also true of internal product dependency with multiple-roll outs that overlap, I'm sure there's many examples).
Where/what you check is situation dependent ~ ie name/value config pairs, binary checksum's, target env state/settings, do you have enough drive space, etc ~ depends on your particular organizational weaknesses.
I'm a big fan of buttons, downstream users tend to regress as you make their environments easier until button clicking is your final stop. Besides, humans make typo's, just accept it, buttons rock.
Meetings/forms - I'd recommend pushing most of this to electronic data entry that is prefilled based on use case ~ saves a ton of time/work, gives you clearly defined queues and gives you CYA all at the same time. I'm a big fan of really limiting facetime meetings that don't involve some type of problem related brainstorming on a whiteboard. The rest are typically low bandwidth information exchanges that are best communicated through data systems.
Nimble company - You can have nimble areas in larger companies, the data-driven ins/outs are critical in that, you'll never escape CYA in a large corporate environment, just build it into your framework and make sure to publicly display your KPI's, people will go after easier targets. You need a champion though, its lonely on the bottom.
elephants/peanuts ~ we usually talk about monkeys/banana's but that works to. ;)
Good point - thanks for that, I might've missed a great game otherwise!
I didn't play the first version and bought the 2nd with high hopes only to be horribly disappointed.
-Quests are far too linear and repetitious. You can play this game quite "into your cups" and do just fine (and that's probably how it should be played)
-Meh - some mildly funny stuff, Claptrap ruins it for me
-The Guns are awesome, but the ammo stacking limitations are frustrating. To maximize the firepower you can carry you have to have one gun for each ammo type, which gets annoying.
-Then wow the old AI must've been terrible, you can duck down behind a simple obstruction and the AI will totally forget about you. Just make sure you aren't LOS and in about 5 secs you're clear.
-Depends on positioning, there are tons of holes in the scenario designs where you can fight up many levels without peril. In a standoff, as much as they try to create those, I'd agree that there's decent balance.
-Sure they have enemy variety, but they all behave similarly enough that its gets boring quick. Renderings are excellent though.-
-You can customize your skill trees to, but to balance the bad scenario design they try to bottleneck you into a play-style that really limits your options.-
-No where near as good as many other games in terms of world interaction, you can have ammo but your ammo stack is limited to X of each ammo type, so you can't have all sniper ammo. Its really not that flexible.
FPS - if COD is a 10 this is a 4
Immersion/world - if Bethesda is a 10 this is a 2
Mostly I think this is just a boring linear shooter with good graphics (and you have to be a fan of that style of graphic art). Having seen the style of game 2k produces I'm going to skip X-COM now (and I'm a huge old X-COM fan).
My first few hours were so horribly boring I'm not sure I can pick this back up, but I'm intrigued by mechs and the mechromancer class coming up so maybe I'll check back in later.
Note: sorry if any of this is badly formatted, I don't post often
Health is a broad topic and it really comes down to what you're actually trying to achieve, 'staying in shape' is a really broad area (gain lean mass, reduce heart risk, age well, endurance, fast-twitch response, weekend athlete, don't throw my back out doing the lawn, etc), however, here's some general advice on overall directions:
Focus: Work can bring you down, and when you're sitting down it can be hard to focus (or the opposite, if you've ever done a 10 hr marathon coding session, looked up and said 'damn'), relax, or keep a stable mental state (depending on your user base) ~ http://www.guidetopsychology.com/autogen.htm ~ is one method of staying focused and giving yourself the reinforcement that will help with the other steps (you can get it down to about 3 minutes front to back by the end of the cycle).
Nutrition: Other than a balanced diet (there's too much info on google to address that here) a good vitamin pack ~ http://antiaging-systems.com/a2z/beyondchelation.htm ~ can go a long way to stabilizing your diet and 'rounding off the rough edges'. I like the chelating package because it helps cleanse some of the crap that gets into the food lifecycle out of our system.
At work exercise: http://www.amazon.com/Isometric-Power-Revolution-Mastering-Lifelong/dp/1932458506 ~ is a solid reference on isometric exercises (many of which can be done at work) - optimally spread out throughout your shift (and some can be done discretely on an hourly basis). There are many isometric references out there so if you find this trend working for you then you should continue to do research until you find a series (with variations) that meets your specific (and evolving) needs.
Day off exercise: 2-3 30m cardio sessions are good, but I also recommend 1-2 yoga sessions as well (or in place of perhaps). Yoga is an excellent method of flushing your lymphatic system and has solid health benefits for arterial plasticity as well (make sure you do your own research however), a good at home example guide is: http://www.amazon.com/Bikrams-Beginning-Class-Second-Edtion/dp/1585420204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246481279&sr=1-1
You can get the info in the books above on the internet as well, but I like books for my library. The above require the lowest investment in equipment that I've seen and still allow for considerable improvement and variation. There's no magic pill here, you have to really define what you want to achieve and keep learning to adapt your regime to your lifestyle/goals. Keep in mind there's a difference been an 'optimum' workout strategy and 'making a difference'. Doing 5 minutes of isometrics or a breathing exercise or two every hour at work isn't an optimum way to build muscle, but every little bit helps.
Best of luck
Has anyone else noticed how much Google's long term business plan seems to mirror that of Neal Stephenson's 'snowcrash' novel?
Not that this is a bad thing mind you, I thought the concept quite cool, but rather its interesting to see a straight sci-fi concept taken and built in reality (okay, with a few minor differences since google's primary engine still searches other sites instead of holding all data, but the main concept is still the same).
I'd say training depends on your organization & culture rather than an IT standard, and even within organizations its not consistent. It really depends on the management staff to decide the culture on training, because even if your organization has no official policy on training, there are usually plenty of ways to 'work around the system' to get what you want for your teams.
Training also provides multiple benefits to both the individual and the organization. I'm a big fan of both training and cross training, and I don't mean 'sit down' sessions with people, I generally prefer programs that offer some form of certificate/degree/etc that both provide the company a solid point of reference from which to judge your skill growth and also provide the employee a 'valuation point' on their resume. I've seen the best value in organizations occur when the training level is high, as the skill levels and exposure rise the higher probability the people in training will create ideas or processes that return a significant reward to the organization.
A lot of the threads on this post seem to point to 'we don't have time to train' and that's just wrong, especially from a management perspective. Any organization worth its salt has enough data/metrics around its operations to be able to budget in some time for training every day and should build 'training programs' to encourage and push its people. It would be nice to assume that people would keep training and pushing their skills in their 'spare time', but not everyone is either that ambitious or has a lifestyle that accomodates that, so the best bet, to have strong teams and make progress as an organization, is to bring training into the workplace and make it an institution. If you're so slammed on a daily basis that you can't see straight and you're doing all manner of overtime, then you've got management issues (or perhaps you're working for a startup, which is a different issue) and prioritization problems.
Depending on your organization, training support might not be explicit, but its there, and the more you push for it, the more you'll find. If you're successful in showing the connection between training and increased performance/efficiency you'll suddenly find that your entire organization is adopting that mentality as well.
Strong training programs make the difference between organizations that are treading water and fighting fires and those that are building themselves to be ready for tomorrow's challenges and opportunities.
work with the larger business picture
work with other VP's to communicate the strengths and weaknesses of your division
work with upper management to make sure your reward system for your division is fair and just
work with upper management to be aware of future negative impacts and to minimize the effect on your area
Bring strong performers in your area to the attention of upper management
Begin projects that will help to increase the efficiency of your area (or reduce the number of bottlenecks, however you want to look at it
Organize your previous peers according to their strengths and increase the flow of information internally
To name a few...
The downside is, if you choose not to take the position, you have to do all of the above anyway (where do you think the new VP is going to get all of his information?) and you don't get the added benefit of being able to intercept and try to minimize negative events as they come down the chain (or being recognized for your efforts). Even layoffs can be minimized by giving people opportunities to transfer internally or get additional training (and these can be done without telling them layoffs are coming and violating corporate policy on such things).
Go for it, take the responsiblity, take on the challenge of learning new sets of skills and turn your engineering skills into your hobby.
Just a thought..
Best of luck.
By your arguments we shouldn't listen to technologists either right? Or are you not familiar with the concept of vaporware?
As a whole, financial analysts do quite well, or as with all things, they do the best they can. I would hope that you don't think all coders are incompetent because of the many problems with software out there. Some of which are majorly critical.
Developers do the best they can, Investment banks do the best they can, etc. Yes you've got bad apples and horrible mistakes and absolute blindness sometimes.
But does that mean it makes sense to discount an entire industry?
However, you're still missing the point. You can fiercly defend the anti-SCO side all you want, and I agree with you, I was asking for some open minds on the subject. Even if everything anti-SCO is 99% correct, there is always that 1%.
Never underestimate your opponent.
No,
/. can sit around all day and pick out places where investments went bad (oh like the tech boys have never produced vaporware, right). But a lot of investments go good, or at least they go accordingly.
You've missed the point -
I pointed out repeatedly that I don't think SCO has a case. What I have is an open mind.
I was just pointing out possiblities, sure you can refute my limited examples all day long, my point was that people on slashdot aren't looking for anything that isn't going to go there way.
That's dangerous. I never said SCO deserved it's ratings or that it would win in court.
I dont think they'll win either, but I do think that this crowd is dangerously one sided, and people on
I was just throwing out some hypothetical things to look at-
consider this, if 12/13 people so didn't read what I wrote and just went off on more SCO bashing, does that give you confidence?
Never underestimate your opponent.
Actually, we do.
/. could be a ruse to make the linux community overconfident and not look as closely as they should.
I work for an investment bank and IB analysts pull information from EVERY source. What technologists often miss, is that we look at it from a different perspective. Professionals don't care how cool a technology is or how miserable SCO's actions are, they care about the changes in future revenue this could cause, how far that revenue is in the future, the risk associated with achieving that financial goal and the different profit scenarios associated with each level of risk.
SCO might be a bubble, but with the attention it draws, it also has a very solid chance of not being a bubble. The larger investors will be watching this stock VERY closely and would dump it way before you have any idea that SCO is going down. One aspect in their favor for you to consider is that of all of the posts here I don't see anyone giving this argument any credit at all. That's the most dangerous sign I've seen yet and I hate SCO as much as anyone here, but I'm not blind either.
SCO could win this in several ways and no, it doesn't have to be inbred juries. The GPL has never been tested in court, I haven't seen anything indicating that this is 100% reliable. Losing that would be huge and the impact on the open source movement would be tremendous. SCO also might actually have a 'silver bullet' of stolen or misappropriated Unix code. There are good reasons why they wouldn't release this code. If they did, the Linux community would make sure that the offending code wasn't in the next kernal release (which would probably be all of a week in coming) and then SCO could only go after users for past use of their code. That wouldn't generate anywhere near the revenue that they will if they can catch the Linux community cold and then force you to pay them or abandon your IT infrastructure until a patch comes out. That's much more enforcable as well.
In fact, SCO's 'public letters' could all be a smoke and mirrors game, and the code they've released so far to endless ridicule here on
The author of this original thread had an excellent point - sure it's easy to dismiss them as non-technical people who read 'serious' magazines. But you're missing the point, you're talking about people who have made a LOT OF MONEY investing in companies, it's what they do. If SCO was just smoke and mirrors don't you think some analysts would be crying that? Surely at least one arbitrage firm would be setting up a short position (and yes you can do short positions while mitigating your upside risk). But I don't see any of that - before you accuse the 'other side' of reading misleading press check your own.
Now, you may be right, SCO might be full of it, but after seeing all the posts on this article and not seeing any actually talk about places where SCO might actually have a good point, I'm actually worried now that they might have a much stronger position than I had ever thought. Before this, I didn't really follow SCO, but now I'm very concerned.
The science behind finance and pricing and valuation at the large IB's is just as valid as any amount of technical knowledge you have, just in a different area. And I imagine people have been all over SCO's future and the potential embedded profit scenarios in their legal action and that's reflected in their current price. SCO isn't in the same situation as the internet bubbles, people have seen these types of lawsuits before, they know how to value them, this is not new. This concerns me.
I still can't bring myself to buy stock in SCO, but I'm very concerned know that they might actually have something.
You have a sound argument, but I don't think you're going deep enough: Points: Oil Get real, you're talking about a war that is going to cost >150 Billion dollars, do you really think we'll get that back from oil? Bad economics. If we wanted Oil, all we had to do was ignore Saddam and make him our buddy. He would've ditched OPEC in a heartbeat and we'd be up to our armpits in Oil. Points: pushing our beliefs Yes, they aren't pushing religion over there, so I suppose you mean democracy. The reason we push democracy is because we feel it makes people less likely to support terrorism because it makes people feel 'vested' in the government so it encourages stability. My point: the US is the most powerful nation in the world - actually, we're more powerful than any combination of countries. Historically, the nation on top is always being attacked and threatened by other people, this is not unreasonable. Other nations have goals and they're doing what they can to achieve those goals, and so are we. You may not agree with the implementation of the policies of the US government, a point I'm not sure I'd disagree with you on, but the underlying policy is to protect US interest. Allowing a destabilized realm with access to money and a strong military interest to prosper is not insuring a stable world environment. I do not feel that it is unreasonable for our govt to look after our long term interests. Do you really thing that people would stop resenting us even if we didn't get involved in anything? There will always be a reason, either we intererd in this or didn't support that enough. We didn't intervene in Kolsovo and stop the genocide so we're bad, we attacked Iraq so we're bad, we didn't spend even more millions to help people in other countries with AIDs, etc. Do you have a historical example of a country that's ever been in our position that has managed it as well as we have? Did the French? English? Rome? Persian empire? I don't think so. Point: health care versus military - isn't the health care argument also a capitalist versus socialist argument? IE how much health care do we give? etc. I agree that we need to work on our internal problems if we want to grow, but throwing more money at problems doesn't generate good solutions. Efficiency does. Before you hack at the military, hack at how slow and inefficient the 2 million government workers are because they've never needed to become efficient. The cost savings you could achieve by working in that realm would be more than enough to answer some of your problems because it would help achieve your goals by making them less expensive to achieve. That same argument can be successfully applied to our military, we waste a LOT of money, but that's one of the things Rumsfield IS trying to change, but it's difficult.
I agree with the use of Green power - but a huge impact here is economical green power. That's massive. In addition to being a nice advance on it's own, this will add competitive pressure to other energy providers and solar companies to reproduce their results or achieve higher efficiences. Like this link:e /MSD-fu ll-spectrum-solar-cell.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archiv
Even as some companies lower the cost of the cells, although with lower efficiency, others are increasing the efficiency of other types of cells. This is a net win for the consumer in either case. It also creates very exciting long term prospects for the US economy (by far the most power hungry in the world)- lowering our cost of electricity would be a huge boost to our productivity and directly benefit the average american (increasing their lifestyle).
This is also the same company that announced it had fuel cells for mobile phones (with a 20 day lifespan no less) about 20 days ago.
Hmmm
EUR stock as well with good currency appreciation potential and earning future. But then it's in Europe and their regulations aren't what one would call business friendly. Any thoughts on this?
Who would buy this stock?
and who's willing to put their money where their mouth is?
=D
I've found that anything I read for enjoyment, I read on dead trees. I'm a huge bibliphile and I just got Neal Stephenson's new book - in First Edition hardback, and I'm all happy. I wouldn't' dream of reading a sci-fi book on a computer (ironic eh?).
;-)
;-)
However for learning based tools - I never use textbooks anymore. Google rules for finding information, websites like WebMD.com offer outstanding sources of issue specific medical knowledge, etc. I wouldn't dream of relying on manuals to find information. The only time I pick up a hard copy is when I'm trying to learn a whole new process (like say, Linux) and then I'll go to it. You can't be the internet for speed, the ability to do a customized search and the almighty 'cut and paste'. Especially since through my university I have access to several hundred databases with one quick search.
Oddly enough, I'm also addicted for local events, movie times, restaurants, news (cnn/slashdot/bbc/newscientist) -etc, yellow bages, white pages, etc. The other day my SDSL connection went down and it took me a full minute to remember I could dial information and find out where the restaurant was located.
Good point about the CRT though, I just bought a flatscreen and it's done wonders for my eyes, although I kept my CRT for my gaming machine.
For enjoyment though, nothing beats good old dead trees.
One thing to keep in mind is that P2P programming actually encompasses a variety of functions that don't neccessarily include illegal file sharing.
P2P applications are also the siblings of cycle sharing, ad hoc networking and redundant data storage for backup and emergancy situations. P2P networks are used by the military to create ad hoc networks that are disaster proof and popular applications like SETI use cycle sharing to boost their available processing power.
P2P will eventually even find its way (conceptually anyway) into the way devices are designed with more distributed aspects to current systems that make failure of any part of the system non critical.
However, as this comment probably is referring to the file sharing aspects of P2P - I would say that it will be a constant tug of war between the regulatory agencies and everyone else who resents the sometimes (not always) userous fees and monopolistic pricing practices used by certain entities (and no I'm not just referring to Microsoft and the RIAA). It's like the Internet's own 'Boston Tea Party'.
There are an endless amount of ways that people can get around legislation to pursue file sharing if they want and even if the govt repeals all of our civil liberties in the effort to restrict file sharing people will still do it, the legal environment just can't keep pace with technology.
Doh
Gotta meeting
Later
While equally dividing research is a good solution - my concern is that it's not being equally divided. I didn't propose that we stop space exploration, but going to Mars seems a bit much when the same focus isn't being evenly applied to other issues (like infrastructure).
;-)
I also wouldn't say six sigma is bunk - yes, the concept has been turned into a management fad, I see it in my workplace as well - but the original GE implementation definately raised the bar for quality control and allowed GE to generate higher returns/margins across their product lines.
However, I agree that these issues should be addressed uniformly, and if they were, I would think that the synergies between the two would benefit both (finding a power solution on the Red planet would benefit any automated facilities that were placed there).
However, they aren't balanced, and that's something worth looking at.
However, for what it's worth, I'll definately admit that space travel is a much more exciting topic to talk about.
As far as the implementation goes I'd say your comments have merit, however investing in a national power grid and energy technologies (not just solar) would provide new technologies in the same way investing in space exploration would.
I was not attempting to say, space or energy. I was pointing out that maybe some things should be taken care of first here, given a priority as it were, and then use the efficiencies generated there to fund additonal efforts at space.
Similar to the way that businesses apply the six sigma formula to their operations, acquire a new business or enter a new field, absorb higher costs to achieve higher revenues, and then make the process more efficient to keep the higher revenues but brings costs back down to a reasonable level.
By your own logic on the benefits of space exploration, if that money were poured into altenrative energy, I think it likely we could find a very cheap energy source and a very dependable power storage system (not neccessarily using solar).
In the same way I didn't mean to imply a pure solar future (that was just an example) I also don't mean to imply to just stop at creating efficiencies in the power grid. I feel that our national infrastructure needs upgrading in several ways - (not all neccessarily by the govt - but perhaps aided by regulation) broadband, preventative medicine, education, etc.
So it's not power or space, or social security or running water. But it is more like, let's build an infrastructure to support future growth and then grow.
Why is it that you can look at the technology benefits of investing in space and not see the same technology benefits of investing in alternative energy/infrastructure development. Both will develop new technologies that enter the trickle down effect.
From my understanding - most large scale power storage is accomplished by pumping water into reservoirs in higher areas and letting them turn hydro power plants and produce energy - not the most efficient method but it does work.
;-)
I'm not saying that we should strive to be a solar powered nation, I'm saying that there are more efficient ways to spend our tax dollars.
Not entirely,
There are a number of different solar conversion methods available. One of the most popular is the salt chamber conversion method which delivers considerably more efficency than panels and provides for a storage mechanism.
http://www.solarpaces.org/technology/tower.html
However, going with your math, even if it took a much larger land mass (note that these studies were using arid states like Nevada as their proving grounds which also impacts your efficiency and weather considerations) wouldn't this still be worth it? Obviously, you wouldn't want to centralize all power generation for security reasons, but even then, are you questioning the merit of the principle of putting money into our infrastructure or are you questioning the implementation I prosposed.
Powering the nation isn't the issue, investing money in our national infrastructure that will deliver long term benefits is the issue.
If we can go to Mars - we can find a way to dramatically lower our costs here. Which one is worth more to our future?
Excellent points, I remember that work as well -
While the lack of current infrastructure is a major problem, I would not encourage underestimating what our government has 'in the bag'. The level of technology the Defense department alone is currently funding is amazing, if you read some of the current SBIR's out there - (grants for research and development by the govt) the military is already looking for man portable plasma weapons and energy weapon defense grids.
I would hazard a guess and say most of the technology needed for the spacecraft already exists in abundance - and it just needs the neccessary funding and incentive to pull it together. A much trickier part might be long term habitation or the trip to Mars - due to the length of the journeys (unless they give the astronauts a really good game counsole), but the idea with landing units on Mars with automated manufacturing and collecting features is dead on.
The US Navy already has automated factories aboard all of its Nimitz AirCraft Carriers in an effort to reduce costs, I don't think it's stretching far at all to build a self building basic colony by 2014 on Mars.
My only concern here would be the cost - I've seen a lot of posts saying that a couple of billion is no big deal. Fair enough - but I'm a fan of efficiency. What if we spent a couple of billion to create an updated and efficient (and redundant) power grid for the nation, and built a solar field in Nevada to power the entire nation (I believe the figure is currently that a 5x5 mile field could literally power the entire nation)? Everyone could pay the same electric bills but have part of it going to a tax to fund future initiatives like space research or automanufacturing research.
Space exploration is exciting - but our current infrastructure needs to be rebuilt as well - instead of spending billions on high profile actions like Iraq and Mars (not arguing against the Iraq action mind you - merely the cost and the way the occupation is being handled) - how about stopping and working on our infrastructure (which was mostly built in the 50's) and using the cost savings from that to pay debt and fund future projects.
Just some thoughts.
There are some good points throughout this entire thread about the cost and usability of the new apple line of computers (and not just the servers). I certainly give Apple credit for the innovation and style they've put into their product (not my taste, but at least they're original).
My issue with Apple, and I'm willing to bet it's fairly commonplace is that I still have a bad taste in my mouth fromm their company culture. IMHO the biggest strength of the PC is that everyone is developing for it - both Hardware and Software. Yes Mac is a 'good' computer, but my PC's (yes, plural) are just as good, totally configurable and 'evolve' over time. Each PC can run any number of OS and take any number of hardware components and work with a huge variety of industry wide components, giving me total price and function control. Same with software, you have huge movments in the PC world with open source operating systems, applications and now gaming and very little with the Mac. If one PC vendor goes down, its really not that big of a deal. Plus I continually scavange parts of my PC's to create more powerful models or models suited to specific tasks. This holds true on a personal or small business levels, and probably for most medium sized companies as well. A staff of a cost minded medium sized business (say a factory)can go out and check everything from ebay to refurbished parts to computer 'junkyards' and probably get what they need to maintain their infrastructure.
Jobs/Apple has held a very tight leash on Apple development for years - and will continue to do so. This is why Apple has the small showing it does, they really aren't suited for all that much, they aren't that adaptable and the software available is nothing comared to the PC. I don't see why Cringely thinks this is a mystery. Computer use starts from the bottum up, more people use PCs so more people are familar with PCs, PC's are more versatile for any use, so people are comfortable with PC's and IT departments are going to recommend PC's.
I don't see Apple's culture changing either, even their Idesk that another poster showed reflects a tendency to make a desk good only for one thing. Who buys that? 1% of users, perhaps. Mainstream? Unlikely.
Until Apple comes out of the closet and opens up and allows more development on their machines, on both Hardware and Software by outside groups, they will never be more significant than the communists who still run for president.
Apple has a great platform and a strong OS, it's a shame they keep is so tightly locked up so as to strangle it.
While I certainly agree with your position on schooling - it still stands to reason that the purpose of your primary education is to prepare you for life. And like it or not, times change, and our schooling must change with it. Our curriculum is quite outdated and could use a going through to make the time our students spent in school more efficient.
As far as social skills go - social skills are also a 'learned ability' just like typing. That would've been an interesting class I think.
Sorry, I'm just big on being time efficient. If we can't teach our children something truely valuable - why are we keeping them in school until 3pm? Or until the age of 18? To keep them out of our way? Because we say they have to to and that's final?
I didn't like that attitude at that age - and I wouldn't put someone else through it now.
I agree that children should learn handwriting at an early age, I do not agree that cursive still has a place in that learning process.
Cursive was created as a faster way to write back when people wrote a LOT because you didn't have to pick up your pen between words. It was a shortcut. However, cursive isn't that much faster and usually is very difficult to read. No one in any type of work environment would ever be allowed to submit or do anything in cursive because it's difficult to read, nor should they. The purpose of the written language is communication, clear, effective communication. Cursive no longer fills that role adequately.
What is the reason to learn cursive in todays age? What benefit does it provide? I do my signature in cursive but that's about it. Why waste years of education on it? If someone really wants to learn cursive, there are plenty of books out there on it. Don't shove it down their throats. Instead teach something useful, like typing. My 2 typing classes in High School have probably provided me with the most utility out of any High School course (except things like English and Math). I still type 100+ words/minute and the skill will become more important not less. With everything in the world going digital why shouldn't we replace cursive with typing classes?
School isn't supposed to be some old stuffy academics way of burdening us with their views on life, it's supposed to be a place where we learn skills that will prepare us for interacting successfully in society.
Don't get me wrong, yes I agree handwriting can be beautiful. I practice Gothic Calligraphy for just that reason, not only is it peaceful but I love the way the characters look - I think that old manuscripts have much more charm and characters than any book printed in the past 60 years (I'm also a bibliophile).
However, this doesn't mean I expect everyone else to have to be just like me.
This is similar to the thread slashdot had up a couple of weeks ago about 'base technology' and slashdot readers. Yes, I like researching old technology. I'm even planning on purchasing the AT Library just because I think it's that cool. But that doesn't mean I think all students should have to learn how to make brick and spin thread or operate a cotton gin.
I put cursive in the same light, imho the skill no longer returns the benefits that the effort to learn it takes, for the majority of people. Take it out of the schools and use the time to teach the kids something that will provide more value.
There are still plenty of ways to learn cursive if you want to, and I don't think anyone will argue that it's really a vital skill anymore.
Before reading this I would like to say that I am not recommending pirating or know anyone that pirates.
Having said that,
The BSA's reviews are misleading for several reasons, but one that I never see mentioned is that pirating actually results in MORE software sales, not less.
How is this?
I've 'heard' of the following happening fairly regularly.
1. Person decides they want to try out a particular piece of software who has no knowledge (high school, hacker, middle age, etc - anyone).
2. Person sees what software they can get for free over the various channels.
3. Person downloads several different types of software to try them all out.
4. Person decides on a favorite.
5. Person proceeds to use software.
6. Person decides to use software for a business related function where revenue will be generated or their work checked.
7. Person buys software.
Note, in many cases, a lot of software purchases come from people who would not have otherwise had the desire to learn a piece of software (say music creating warez), or the funds to buy a professional piece of software (say windows 2k server, or office etc) but was able to develop the skills to use them. Once they can use them, then it isn't a stretch to purchase the software because you have the skills.
Pirating, in some cases may deprive software companies of revenue. But in many others pirating actually helps distribute knowledge about the software and increases the computer knowledge of the software in questions.
One of Microsofts chief marketing advantages is that their software is easily cracked. Why? Because everyone uses it - I would think that most students would especially fall into this category since they can't afford the products or are too young to have the means (high school/junior high) but kids who grow up using Microsoft products will buy microsoft products.
In fact, if fewer people pirated software, the market for software would be much smaller because fewer people would know how to use the software, and who pays $100 + to buy something they don't know how to use?
I've seen several articles bashing 'rediscovering' older techs at unneccessary but those people are missing a key point. Some of these 'older'concepts haven't been revisited in a while and could probably be improved by a creative insight with modern techniques.
;-)
A significant portion of our technology is based off of early 1900's designs. For example, the way we generate electrical power (ie heat + water = steam >>> turns turbine > spins magnet > generates electricity) hasn't changed since it's discovery. There are some newer areas (solar cells, fuel cells) but for the most part we power 99% of our society this way.
A lot of basic technology is still very fundamental to our culture and I'm glad to see people revisiting it - it's the only way to continually shock the technology base of an advanced civilization.
These advances can come from anywhere, so what if the SCA are rebuilding medieval style armor? What if one of them comes up with a superior chainmail and merges it with Kevlar, reduces the weight and sells it to the military?
How about new designs for soap? New styles of paper? Are the old ways the best? You'll never know until you research a couple. There were tons of expirements in radio control in the early 1900's many of which were abandoned because the technology wasn't there - how many of those could be useful now?
Do the funamentals of our wireless transmitters remain the most efficient way to transmit information?
And it's fun, did I mention it's fun?