It took me, what, two weeks to learn C by reading K&R? Maybe another two months to
get comfortable with the pointers to structures of structures of
pointers we used to use back then, and were later replaced (in C++) with classes
and containers.
My point being that anyone who just learned C didn't set the bar all that high.
It's like a landscape painter who only does sunsets.
First, free here means free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Many companies have made money from "free software" (e.g., Red Hat), and it's considered perfectly kosher to do so provided you keep to the terms of the licenses.
Second, patents apply to almost all use, not just to things that are bought and sold - you can't undercut someone else's patents by giving away their inventions for free.
Third, every company that uses free software (and who doesn't?) does so presumably for commercial advantage.
The more aggressively the Scientologists go after their critics, the more people hate them. And the more people hate the scientologists, the more they will criticize them.
When I took Computer Science in the mid to late 1970's, there were almost as many females as males. Of course, the perception of programmers as nurds wasn't as fully developed then - indeed I don't recall that term even being used.
It suggests to me that public perception, even when it's sort of funny and not intended to be mean spirited, can be damaging.
You're not seeing the big picture. We use gasoline-fueled cars until the
climate heats up enough so that electric cars are practical everywhere, at which
point we can then switch over and save the planet.
What you've described is a caricature of modern business, not reality.
I find modern business loaded with people with both integrity and long-term committment.
Not everyone, not everywhere, but enough that the situation is no where near as
dismal as you make it out.
And so far as suppressing good ideas, I state again that I've never seen it
happen. I've seen good ideas ignored or under exploited, but due to ignorance or
incompetence, not through evil intentions.
Businesses know that good ideas are for exploiting, not hiding.
We had better innovate, better our competitors sure the hell will. The status quo
is not an option.
Are they also going to come out with a movie about what how the electric car was killed
at Honda, Nissan, Toyoto, Mazda, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Saab, Subaru, Volkswagon, Renault,
Fiat, BMW, Peugeot, Hyundai, Suzuki, and Mitsubishi?
You're proposing that the car makers all got together
and said "Okay, let's not make electric cars in any volume
so it doesn't cut into our other products"? You've been watching
too many Hollywood movies.
Do you really think that a bunch of companies that are normally
at each others throats would cooperate in this way? Even one
company failing to cooperate would screw it up for everyone.
If a company sees a big, juicy market the other companies are ignoring,
believe me they'll go for it.
Far more likely is that electric cars have too many technical
deficiencies to create a large market. Read what Wikipedia has to say:
I work for an R&D department in a corporation. When we see a good idea that might
cut into the profits of our existing products, do we say
"Okay, how can we suppress this?" Never. Such a suggestion would be the height of
absurdity. A corporation that tries to fight the tide of innovation is doomed.
Whatsmore, no one would want to work for it.
Rather the response is, "how can we exploit this idea to the max" and
"how can improve on this idea". If we aren't allowed to exploit the idea, then
we ask "how can we come up with an even better idea".
The idea of a company trying to keep a good idea down is pure fiction.
I have never seen it in practise in my company.
It's just not workable in practice.
I would like to congratulate you on being the first poster
to express skepticism. Well done!
Compressed air doesn't you give a free pass on the 1st
law of thermodynmics.
How much energy does it take
to drive a car of that size 200 or 300 km at, say, 50 km per hour?
How much would that much energy cost as electricity?
Is should be well
under $3 for this idea to hold up, since we can expect inefficiencies in the conversion
from electricity to compressed air to mechanical motion.
Indeed some air compressors run
What? No mention of motorcyclists outrunning shock waves?
Shock waves in the air travel at about 330 m/s
or 7oo miles/hour, fast even for a Hollywood stunt rider.
Never mind that the first shock to hit would have travelled
through the ground. The speed of that depends on the types of rock
underneath, but it's on the order of 4000 miles/hour. That bike
better be tuned up.
As your essay demonstrates, the common usage of political labels is so botched up these days that they hardly useful anymore. Many classic liberals are thought of as conservatives, when they are anything but.
Just another reason to avoid the "conservative" label when a more precise description is available.
This posting seems unnecessarily inflammatory. There is no need to refer to these people as "ultra-conservative". There's a couple of reasons for my objection:
The term "fundamentalist Christian" is more accurate and to the point.
Conservativism and Christian beliefs are two quite different concepts. One can have conservative polital beliefs without being Christian, and vice versa. It's hard to see what political conservatism has to do with this event.
The word "ultra" suggests extremism.
The reader can judge for him or herself how extreme the board members are.
There is no reason for Zonk to draw conclusions for the reader.
Putting prefixes like "ultra" and "neo" in front of political words is often used as a disparagement, usually (I suspect) when the author has no idea what neo-conservatives or neo-liberals truly are. They just sound insulting.
The word "ultra" reminds one of "ultra-violence", a term from "A Clockwork Orange".
I stand corrected. The reviewer could rerun the experiments if he or she had the same time
and resources as the author of the paper. Which, of course, he or she never does.
Generally a reviewer is a very busy person who can dedicate at most a few days
to the task.
You should, perhaps, try peer reviewing a paper yourself to understand
the position reviewers are in, and what peer review means in practice.
Slashdot Mirror
My point being that anyone who just learned C didn't set the bar all that high. It's like a landscape painter who only does sunsets.
First, free here means free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Many companies have made money from "free software" (e.g., Red Hat), and it's considered perfectly kosher to do so provided you keep to the terms of the licenses.
Second, patents apply to almost all use, not just to things that are bought and sold - you can't undercut someone else's patents by giving away their inventions for free.
Third, every company that uses free software (and who doesn't?) does so presumably for commercial advantage.
The more aggressively the Scientologists go after their critics, the more people hate them. And the more people hate the scientologists, the more they will criticize them.
Scientologists should maybe think this through.
You're telling this to programmers? The ones who coined the phrase "it's 90% done and always will be"? The ones who invented the software crisis?
The proper headline should be "global warming solved for 3rd time this week".
... of a guy who could only login successfully while sitting down, but not standing up. It took him some time to figure out why.
Any takers?
But I take your point. Might I also suggest that using an automatic spell checker is better than trying to compose on the fly.
So in 15 years we can attack Kamchatka from Alaska with 3 dice?
No such thing as programmers back then. We were called "Babbage Difference Engine Technicians". And happy to be called that, I can tell you.
When I took Computer Science in the mid to late 1970's, there were almost as many females as males. Of course, the perception of programmers as nurds wasn't as fully developed then - indeed I don't recall that term even being used.
It suggests to me that public perception, even when it's sort of funny and not intended to be mean spirited, can be damaging.
Which begs the question of how Kathy Charlton got her Master's degree in education with that kind of thinking.
(Disclaimer: This is a joke designed to irritate the overly literate. Please do not post corrections.)
The NASDAQ disallows this as a means to get your stock price back over $1. You can do it, but it won't get you off of their delisting list.
You're not seeing the big picture. We use gasoline-fueled cars until the climate heats up enough so that electric cars are practical everywhere, at which point we can then switch over and save the planet.
Or at least the important bits, like Winnipeg.
What you've described is a caricature of modern business, not reality.
I find modern business loaded with people with both integrity and long-term committment. Not everyone, not everywhere, but enough that the situation is no where near as dismal as you make it out.
And so far as suppressing good ideas, I state again that I've never seen it happen. I've seen good ideas ignored or under exploited, but due to ignorance or incompetence, not through evil intentions.
Businesses know that good ideas are for exploiting, not hiding. We had better innovate, better our competitors sure the hell will. The status quo is not an option.
General Motors. Those evil bastards!
Are they also going to come out with a movie about what how the electric car was killed at Honda, Nissan, Toyoto, Mazda, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Saab, Subaru, Volkswagon, Renault, Fiat, BMW, Peugeot, Hyundai, Suzuki, and Mitsubishi?
Do you really think that a bunch of companies that are normally at each others throats would cooperate in this way? Even one company failing to cooperate would screw it up for everyone. If a company sees a big, juicy market the other companies are ignoring, believe me they'll go for it.
Far more likely is that electric cars have too many technical deficiencies to create a large market. Read what Wikipedia has to say: I don't really expect you to believe this. The paranoid are persistent, I'll give 'em that.
I work for an R&D department in a corporation. When we see a good idea that might cut into the profits of our existing products, do we say "Okay, how can we suppress this?" Never. Such a suggestion would be the height of absurdity. A corporation that tries to fight the tide of innovation is doomed. Whatsmore, no one would want to work for it.
Rather the response is, "how can we exploit this idea to the max" and "how can improve on this idea". If we aren't allowed to exploit the idea, then we ask "how can we come up with an even better idea".
The idea of a company trying to keep a good idea down is pure fiction. I have never seen it in practise in my company. It's just not workable in practice.
How much energy does it take to drive a car of that size 200 or 300 km at, say, 50 km per hour? How much would that much energy cost as electricity?
Is should be well under $3 for this idea to hold up, since we can expect inefficiencies in the conversion from electricity to compressed air to mechanical motion. Indeed some air compressors run
I'm no fan of monkey boy, and I've no doubt his comments come of spite, but even a stopped clock is right now and then.
I would be astonished if Google can sustain their business model and rate of growth for much longer. Certainly their stock price looks ridiculous.
What? No mention of motorcyclists outrunning shock waves?
Shock waves in the air travel at about 330 m/s or 7oo miles/hour, fast even for a Hollywood stunt rider.
Never mind that the first shock to hit would have travelled through the ground. The speed of that depends on the types of rock underneath, but it's on the order of 4000 miles/hour. That bike better be tuned up.
If it's the highest honour Canada can bestow, where the hell is Don Cherry? Hell, he should be Governor General.
Course he'll still need that 7 second delay.
Hey, if you're not anal retentive, you have no business being a programmer.
As your essay demonstrates, the common usage of political labels is so botched up these days that they hardly useful anymore. Many classic liberals are thought of as conservatives, when they are anything but.
Just another reason to avoid the "conservative" label when a more precise description is available.
I stand corrected. The reviewer could rerun the experiments if he or she had the same time and resources as the author of the paper. Which, of course, he or she never does. Generally a reviewer is a very busy person who can dedicate at most a few days to the task.
You should, perhaps, try peer reviewing a paper yourself to understand the position reviewers are in, and what peer review means in practice.