But after we completed a project with a fair amount of code in Scala, I'm starting to think differently. Yes, it would be nice to have more features. Yes, Java sorely needs things like reified generics and lambdas. But at the end of the day, Java code is more easily supported than code in 'smart' languages.
I've measured it, and Scala code requires more time to support it and during its development we had a lot of arguments about the code style and design approaches.
You're very wrong. Software industry is alive and well in Russia and ex-Soviet Bloc countries. It's not very visible because:
1) Most of software companies work on outsourced projects. You might be using software developed in Russia and don't know about it (examples: recent versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator, Heroes V, etc.)
2) A significant part of software companies produce software for domestic consumption.
3) ex-Soviet bloc was late on software development scene.
4) A great many ex-Soviet programmers emigrated to the West countries.
PS: I'm the owner of a small software company in Ukraine:)
Java code is usually larger than code in other languages, true.
But currently Java has the best tools in existence. IntelliJ IDEA is the best IDE out there.
In fact, power of Java tools is so great, it can argued that Java+IDE is in fact a higher-level language. For example, C# has LINQ for statically-typed queries checked at compile time, Java has nothing of that sort in the core language. However, "edit-time" inspections in IDEA provide even better support for checking queries: http://files.rsdn.ru/37054/HQLBug.png (here a non-existing field and incorrect placeholders are highlighted).
GM already priced about ~8k for replacement parts in the cost of the original Volt.
I think, there'll probably be various issues and/or costly recalls for Volts. After all, there is a ton of new technology there, and something is bound to be wrong/dangerous/...
"It will be entertaining if GM warranties for 10 years as this will be a huge future liability. In ten years cells will fail even if the pack still has the capacity it will likely require replacement of bad cells."
That warranty is mandated by government (I can find a press-release, if you want). I don't see why it's impossible, chemistry of lithium batteries is known well enough to make such a gurantee.
"I was reading comments on the GM blog and someone noted that the EPA watt-hours per mile actually translated into 32 miles range for 8KWhs. The GM answer was already hedging the range saying the 40 miles was "up to" 40 miles and the EPA used pesky things like AC."
Yes, of course. GM calculates the range based on a 'typical' usage (with some AC, hills, etc.). It will probably be different in the real world. 8 miles change does not sound extraordinary.
And also let me rephrase it this way, GM's guarantee means that Volt's battery will have 8kWh of usable capacity even after 10 years.
Volt's battery will only be utilized for 50% of its capacity at the start of its lifetime (Volt has 16kWh battery, but only uses 8kWh). As the battery ages, Volt will use more and more capacity.
At the end of its lifetime, battery will degrade to about 50% of its initial capacity.
So I don't see why such guarantee is not feasible technically.
"If it's stupid but it works, it isn't stupid" - that also applied to evolutionary designs.
Also, some of these 'design issues' might in truth be advantages. For example, sea mammals can swim through oxygen-depleted dead waters just fine - they don't depend on dissolved oxygen.
"Intelligent design can be defended just like any other belief that has no evidence to prove it wrong."
We have evidence which proves ID wrong. We have more than enough evidence in favor of evolution (literally, thousands and thousands of facts) and _nothing_ which flat-out contradicts it.
The _only_ way ID can be defended is by saying that God faked all the evidence (or Satan faked it to misguide us). But that's just intellectual masturbation.
ID can not be defended, it's not a theory, it's just a religion. Moreover, it contradicts reality. Thus all defenders of ID are invariably stupid morons. I've not yet seen a good argument in favor of ID.
PS: I do not include guided evolution (which is nicely unfalsifiable, but at least somewhat saner) in "ID".
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that way earlier.
But after we completed a project with a fair amount of code in Scala, I'm starting to think differently. Yes, it would be nice to have more features. Yes, Java sorely needs things like reified generics and lambdas. But at the end of the day, Java code is more easily supported than code in 'smart' languages.
I've measured it, and Scala code requires more time to support it and during its development we had a lot of arguments about the code style and design approaches.
You're very wrong. Software industry is alive and well in Russia and ex-Soviet Bloc countries. It's not very visible because:
1) Most of software companies work on outsourced projects. You might be using software developed in Russia and don't know about it (examples: recent versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator, Heroes V, etc.)
2) A significant part of software companies produce software for domestic consumption.
3) ex-Soviet bloc was late on software development scene.
4) A great many ex-Soviet programmers emigrated to the West countries.
PS: I'm the owner of a small software company in Ukraine :)
Java code is usually larger than code in other languages, true.
But currently Java has the best tools in existence. IntelliJ IDEA is the best IDE out there.
In fact, power of Java tools is so great, it can argued that Java+IDE is in fact a higher-level language. For example, C# has LINQ for statically-typed queries checked at compile time, Java has nothing of that sort in the core language. However, "edit-time" inspections in IDEA provide even better support for checking queries: http://files.rsdn.ru/37054/HQLBug.png (here a non-existing field and incorrect placeholders are highlighted).
Another example, Java doesn't have closures, but the can be effectively added by IDE: http://blogs.jetbrains.com/idea/2009/03/closure-folding-in-intellij-idea-9-maia/
So writing Java in a good IDE for me is better than writing code in a great language in a plain text-editor (i.e. ViM, Emacs, TextMate).
"There is no reason for a POS to have SSN. There are many other methods to get uniqueness."
Uhm... Care to tell them? We've researched possible unique identifiers for people in our last project. So far, the only solution is to use SSNs.
The most sane way to solve this problem is to stop using SSNs as authenticators and start printing them in phone directories.
The current will be severely limited by the number of ions colliding with the lift's cable. So you won't get a current of great strength.
GM already priced about ~8k for replacement parts in the cost of the original Volt.
I think, there'll probably be various issues and/or costly recalls for Volts. After all, there is a ton of new technology there, and something is bound to be wrong/dangerous/...
Not exactly. Batteries degrade, but they don't die completely.
Also, they live much longer if kept close to optimal charge (around 50%), which is kinda hard to do if they're sitting on a shelf.
"It will be entertaining if GM warranties for 10 years as this will be a huge future liability. In ten years cells will fail even if the pack still has the capacity it will likely require replacement of bad cells."
That warranty is mandated by government (I can find a press-release, if you want). I don't see why it's impossible, chemistry of lithium batteries is known well enough to make such a gurantee.
"Where have they guaranteed this?"
In many many press-releases. You can follow the http://gm-volt.com/ site.
"I was reading comments on the GM blog and someone noted that the EPA watt-hours per mile actually translated into 32 miles range for 8KWhs. The GM answer was already hedging the range saying the 40 miles was "up to" 40 miles and the EPA used pesky things like AC."
Yes, of course. GM calculates the range based on a 'typical' usage (with some AC, hills, etc.). It will probably be different in the real world. 8 miles change does not sound extraordinary.
And also let me rephrase it this way, GM's guarantee means that Volt's battery will have 8kWh of usable capacity even after 10 years.
Volt's battery will only be utilized for 50% of its capacity at the start of its lifetime (Volt has 16kWh battery, but only uses 8kWh). As the battery ages, Volt will use more and more capacity.
At the end of its lifetime, battery will degrade to about 50% of its initial capacity.
So I don't see why such guarantee is not feasible technically.
Volt's battery is guaranteed to deliver 40 miles of AER _even_ after 10 years or 150000 miles.
They are producing IVs (integration vehicles) which are essentially production models. And GM fully commited themselves to 40 miles range.
It's quite unlikely to change.
Russia: 17,075,400 km^2. Population density: 8.3/km^2
Phone plans: still cheaper than in the US.
How many towers does it take to cover Russia?
Russia is about several _times_ larger than the USA. Yet, it still has much lower prices.
"If it's stupid but it works, it isn't stupid" - that also applied to evolutionary designs.
Also, some of these 'design issues' might in truth be advantages. For example, sea mammals can swim through oxygen-depleted dead waters just fine - they don't depend on dissolved oxygen.
Have you ever discussed evolution with creationists?
If you did, then you'll understand that it's not a huge leap of faith at all. It's more like 99% prediction.
No. ID tells us that creatures were DESIGNED, not EVOLVED. That's why it's called Intelligent _Design_.
You're thinking about "guided evolution" (which is unfalsifiable, but more or less sane).
"Intelligent design can be defended just like any other belief that has no evidence to prove it wrong."
We have evidence which proves ID wrong. We have more than enough evidence in favor of evolution (literally, thousands and thousands of facts) and _nothing_ which flat-out contradicts it.
The _only_ way ID can be defended is by saying that God faked all the evidence (or Satan faked it to misguide us). But that's just intellectual masturbation.
"Bill Dembski is a smart guy (I've met him)"
Are you sure you're not mistaking him with McDonalds clown?
Uhm, no.
ID is a form of creationism. It's pure and simple.
Young Earth Creationism is just another form.
Care to bet that the course includes real education on evolution theory?
From what I've seen, their 'education' consists of repeating old lies again and again.
Yes, we dabble in guided evolution. Genetic engineering really upsets fundies :)
But it's still wrong to think that we can guide evolution of every species in the foreseeable future.
By the way, notice that defending their position does not include a knowledge of evolution theory. So it's really a pure trolling.
Defending? What?
ID can not be defended, it's not a theory, it's just a religion. Moreover, it contradicts reality. Thus all defenders of ID are invariably stupid morons. I've not yet seen a good argument in favor of ID.
PS: I do not include guided evolution (which is nicely unfalsifiable, but at least somewhat saner) in "ID".