Notice one of the comments pointed out that Borland Pascal was one of the fastest executing languages next to ASM. I remember that Borland Pascal (in 19991) executed almost 10 times faster than Borland C++ on a consistent basis on the same systems.
This only points out that tests need to compare apples and apples. I would be quite surprised if any C++ can execute a FFT as fast as my Leahy FORTRAN95.
If I was going to pick only one language to work with, it would probably be LISP, but Haskell comes a very close second. I like code that does exactly what I want it to do with no side effects.
There is much more to comparing languages than is reported in the article, including testing the language's suitability for a given task.
I make apps for the desktop, usually Windows. I can see the point of the places that are "Microsoft shops" because specializing on one platform allows you to focus on mastering a coherent set of tools. I work over a number of platforms, and sometimes it is frustrating to have to slow down and familiarize myself with new development paradigms.
I was impressed with Silverlight, but not enough to make it a specialty. Two days ago I found Lightswitch for Windows Studio 2010, and I am truly impressed! It is by far and away the easiest way to make beautiful, useful apps for both the Windows desktop and the Web. When you need to get work done in a hurry, this is the way I would like to see all my environments work! One of my friends told me it is the best tool he's seen since Clarion.
I hope that MS doesn't abandon Silverlight, but I've heard concerns from more than one MS shop that they have been left out in the cold before, and they hate the feeling of insecurity in working with MS.
Yup, you are right. And I think this goes to my assertion that more countries are becoming prosperous enough to bid for resources that they could not bid for before. The people who really suffer are in the areas that haven't made the same economic progress, but must bid on the resources at the higher prices.
It is sad that this forum discourages you from carrying out a more complete argument.
It is true that when I was a kid, the norm was a one-earner family and Mom stayed home with the kids. Today's estimates show that the net advantage of most two-earner families is about 10% over the 50's and 60's. The main exception is the two-earner/no-children group, which generally wastes their early great advantage. The major culprit in this loss of purchasing power is a type of consumer inflation: When you have more money circulating, the cost of goods and services grows to absorb it. The second major culprit is the expense of sustaining the household without the economic input of the unpaid homemaker. Keep in mind, that 10% could make a family very prosperous, but most families waste it on present gratification of lesser wants rather than deferring gratification for prosperity.
Food costs have not actually doubled in terms of comparable dollars. However, the composition and quantity of "food" purchases is much different, and much of it is wasteful. And, government debt and overall money mismanagement have eroded the purchasing power of our money.
Some resources are not as available simply because populations that weren't prosperous enough to afford them are now competing with us (USA) to buy them. Oil and gas are major commodities in this category.
You have an interesting point when you compare China and India, but the population alone is not enough to determine who will become a world leader.
I do believe there will be catastrophic collapse in certain areas of the world, and I'm pretty sure that population will have a large part in the process, but I'm more inclined to view it as a system collapse than an inevitable result of population increases. I'm still convinced there is something right about System Dynamics and what the "Limits to Growth" groups ae analyzing, but I'm not convinced that those models actually predict anything more than mis-allocation of resources rather than inexorable, creeping disaster.
I'm all for making the whole world prosperous; Studies show that as societies become prosperous, populations drop and more resources are available to each individual.
Thanks for the info. I decided to check what you said and what I thought against the "Pocket World in Figures" on my shelf. Most of what you said is much more accurate than the impressions I got from friends in the Netherlands. I don't know why I thought that internet connection was free; I found references from friends living in other countries where it was free, but not from the Netherlands. (A friend of mine in Italy waited six months between ordering and getting hooked up.)
I checked the used car prices on autotrack and found that the price is a little higher, the cars are usually lower mileage, and the taxes quite a bit higher. Insurance is higher and NL has a pretty expensive road tax. Actual quantification eludes me.
The OECD database seems to indicate that disposable income is about 80% of a comparable US citizen's disposable income. However, it seems that Americans have a greater amount to blow away due to the much lower cost of consumer items. I guess I'm saying that a comparable sum will, at this time, buy more goods in the USA than in NL, because less of it goes to consumer taxes.
Browsing past editions of the PWiF, I see that the USA has dropped quite a bit in the past few years. In 2000, we had more disposable income than Germany, Japan and GB combined. As we adopt more socialistic practices and gather more debt, I suspect that the USA economic miracles will be at an end in few years.
There is nothing like a lot of facts to blow away my favorite presuppositions...
Well, according to my friends who actually live in the Netherlands, some are US expats, it is a great place to live. There are lots of social services, so the tax rate is close to 75%. Disposable income is a fraction of what it is in the USA. Houses are extremely hard to buy. Credit is very hard to come by. Life is dull, but secure.
The cost of a car is maybe the most expensive in the world. Consumer goods, such as computers and TV's (especially big-screen tv's) are typically twice what you would pay in the US (comparable dollars/euro). So, the top-of-the-line i7 Fujitsu laptop I bought for $3K would cost me about twice that in the Netherlands. ATT charges me $80/mo for my internet connection, which is free in the Netherlands (when and where available). It would only take me 6 years to recoup the cost of my laptop by having free, net neutral internet in the Netherlands if I don't include the cost of living and the loss of comparable income.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. The problem with our telecommunications system is that it is a broken market. In a free market world, the cost of services would go down as more people buy. One of the things that causes this broken market is lack of competition. When only two providers control 80%+ and the infrastructure is closed or extremely expensive, they can squeeze us by excessive tolls. When the day comes that the highest conduits are part of your city utilities and the there are competitive pipes between cities, you may see a significant drop in price for competitive services. Strange as it may seem, the pipeline industry provides a good model of competition providing the most volume to any destination at the lowest price. I can picure a day when "bandwidth brokers" are taking minute-by-minute bids on competitive communications pipes.
Another aspect of the situation: Net neutrality is a type of price control. Price control invariably causes shortages and lower quality of service. In a net-neutral world, the only people who will have the highest quality service will be those who can afford to bypass the common market and buy the elite services. (Try hooking up to Internet2.)
This was actually a good discussion. Some of the responses were very informative. (And some of them were complete crap, of course.) the presence of FACTS in response to those questions makes it easier to identify frivolous claims and faulty arguments, and I would like to thank those who took the time to compose complete and factual answers.
I knew a woman in Alaska who had to decide, before she turned 22, whether to be a US citizen or Japanese. I thought she had to file a claim asserting her US Citizenship, but it may be that she had to assert a denial of US Citizenship.
A friend of mine, who is an immigration lawyer, says that the phrase, "under the jurisdiction of the United States" is a matter of controversy for the courts. Diplomats are not the only exemption to US Citizenship derived from being born on USA soil, and that the criteria are not as cut-and-dried as a non-lawyer may think.
In some people's minds, this won't be settled without a forensic examination of the birth certificate. Some pople won't be convinced even then, but I lump those people with the folks who think Elvis is still alive.
Also interesting, I noticed that I was modded 'way down (even though I thought the article was a presentation of reasonable questions). I have noticed in the past, that other posters get modded down on the basis of the popularity of their posts, rather than the quality of question or argument. I recently read an article where the psychologist claimed that the Internet was a major source of crowd-influenced, crowd-compliant opinion shaping. Are the sheep leading the discussions these days?
Newspaper articles have NEVER been sufficient to establish evidence. This is not an issue that should be calmly accepted because someone with a vested interest announced it to the news. It should be evaluated by an objective third party, and maybe by multiple third parties. Given the discussions just on/., would we doubt it is possible for some Intelligence, Law Enforcement, or slimy political public relations firm to plant or forge evidence?
I personally am willing to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, but that does not mean this is the only question regarding his eligibility for the Presidency.
Just because a person is born on American soil does not make that person a citizen. (Take the children of diplomats, for example.) Does the fact of one of his parents being a British National confer British citizenship on him? Dual citizenship? Does it depend on the laws in effect at the time of his birth? How does that affect his eligibility?
If his mother became an Indonesian citizen, doesn't that mean he, as a minor, was also an Indonesian citizen? Doesn't he have to file a form during his 21st year asserting his birthright to American citizenship? (If he didn't, is he an illegal alien?) Did he attend Occidental College and Columbia as a foreign student? If so, how does that affect his eligibility?
I am bothered more by the fact that Obama and his groups have spent millions of dollars trying to suppress attempts to find out the facts, than I am by crazy people spreading doubts about where he was born.
Granted, the limited scope of a discussion like this does not allow for detailed logical analysis. Nevertheless, "You need government taxation and spending to pay for stuff that requires long-term investment." is wrong! I object to your use of the word "need". Just consider that there are many other ways for government to finance infrastructure other than taxes. And much long-term government investment has only mis-allocated wealth. (The current recession seems to have stemmed from government mis-allocating money to the housing market, and then trying to "soften" the consequences by mis-allocating funds to other industries.) The earlier respondent making the point about increased opportunity costs actually made the argument better than I did.
Dismissing the article as "ultra-libertarian" fails to address the premise at all. (This is an egregious rhetorical fallacy...shame on you!) Like any science or technology, political viewpoint should not get in the way of describing what works. What works, works; what doesn't work, doesn't work; and you can do what doesn't work over and over again and it still won't work. Research in Economics over the last 40 years has clearly shown that a free market allocates wealth most efficiently, and according to an article in the Economic Review in 1992, over 95% of economists agree with this view. Almost all inefficiencies arise as a result of political interference. I like to think that good Economics is politically atheistic.
Politics does have its place; I have relatives in Sweden who admit that, while Sweden is a great place to live, they pay a lot and lose a lot to support their government-run welfare system. They seem to think it is worth the cost, but they have had to cut back drastically in the last 25 years because they overdid it and the costs were ruining their country.
You have changed the scope of the discussion from "What is the relationship of the high-speed rail under-performance to the anticipated upcoming China monetary crises?" to "What is the role of government?" If you think you have the answer, John Stossel (who professes to be a Libertarian) will pay you $1000 for each task you can prove that government can do better than private industry. (As far as I know, no one has earned any money yet.)
Yeah, China is about due. Japan and the USA (along with Greece, Ireland, Spain, and others) ignored basic economic principles and are paying the price. (I'm NOT talking about the Tsunami tragedy in Japan, but the stagnation of the economy.) "Stimulus" money has to come from the places where it's produced, and is a by-product of productivity. If you loan money to people or projects, those recipients need to have the means to pay it back. Governments do not produce anything, so they must get their money from those who are productive. To "stimulate" the economy, they are taking it from productive projects (Exports), skimming expenses off the top and then sending it back as "stimulus" funds. The other alternative is to create money out of thin air, which causes inflation. Either way, the so-called "stimulus" loses its effectiveness the more often it is used. Japan's last big stimulus attempts created almost no movement in their economy; not even short-term.
China's rail problem is not the cause of the bank problems: The cause is that banks were forced to loan money to unsound projects at unrealistic rates. China has huge amounts of "Sovereign Wealth" due to their absolute and competitive advantages over their Western customers, but they have no place to put it, internal to China. Distributing it to unsound projects wastes resources and unbalances the internal economy. Some infrastructure development could bolster the economy (like toll roads in the USA). However, the implication derived from the banker's statements is that the "tolls" from operating the railway are not sufficient to service the debts. Banks don't get their money back and the government gets to subsidize a losing project. (Sound familiar?)
Let me add something: The accessories you get will have a lot to do with the utility of your system. My T900 came with an ATT Air Card installed. It has been 4 months, and I STILL don't have it working. Fujitsu depended on ATT, ATT doesn't have a clue what they are doing and they depend on Sierra Wireless software, but nobody can tell me what type of air card it is. I've had ATT, Sierra, Fujitsu and two other ATT people on the line at the same time and they are all confused. After two hours of going back and forth...ATT cut off my phone call and when I called back they told me the call center was closed..call tomorrow.
As a tech/IT consultant, my inventory is time. Obviously, the drawback of my line of work is that I have to suffer through the early learning curve on on behalf of my clients. I just wish I could charge ATT the same rate for wasting my time that I have to charge my clients.
To my mind, the best tech equipment is the combination that gives me the best opportunity to be productive with the least hassle, even if it costs a bit more.
What do you want? If you are going to do graphics get lots of memory.
Choose a brand that has good tech support. Dell used to have the best tech support in the business, but it's now probably the worst. I lean toward Lenovo, Fujitsu and Toshiba. If you are doing a lot of multimedia, Sony is ok, but temperamental.
Most of the imperative languages I have used in the last 45 years have been easy to model, but not easy to prove mathematically at the same level of logic. They invariably needed to be proved in some customized Higher-Order-Language, and many times this was LISP or PROLOG.
Object-Oriented programming has the drawback of distributing data all over the system, and it tends to obscure the underlying structure of the problem space and the matching solutions. OOP is convenient for plugging completed subsystems into a larger system, and so it can be a boon to good application development. However, a program is simply a set of instructions that work on some data. (An object is still a set of instructions that works on data, but usually the object carries the data or an abstraction of the data within the scope of the object code.) It seems appropriate to me that beginning CS students should be concerned with controlling instructions against different data to learn the effective rules and processes. I would favor assembly and some imperative languages such as Pascal, FORTRAN or C to demonstrate the underlying principles, and then probably a functional programming language like Haskell for advanced concepts. While I wouldn't bother to teach a Pascal or FORTRAN class as an introduction to programming, I would certainly teach them as a requirement to a numerical methods class.
There is a difference between memory and skills. In order to do good Algebra you must have a specialized vocabulary of about 620 concepts and be able to make the distinctions among them. Using these tools is easier if you actually know what they are, but good usage comes from good practice.
Do not underestimate the power of mnemonics; They can greatly improve your performance in anything you do!
My first memory course was, "You Can Remember" by Dr. Bruno Furst. It came in a slipcover with twelve small lessons and a "dictionary" that converted numbers to mnemonics. It was advertised extensively in Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, and Mechanix Illustrated magazines in the 50's and 60's. I used some of those techniques for years, but I did not get really interested in memory systems until my 20's. I found a book called, "How to Develop a Super-Power Memory" by Harry Lorayne. I found it very useful, and it is the first book I ever owned I only had to read once to remember the contents. Since then I've acquired a good number of books on mnemonics, and, although there is much repetition from book to book, I occasionally find a new approach or insight that helps my learning.
If you are a student I reccommend, "Brainbooster" by Finkle, along with a general memory book such as, "How to Develop a Super-Power Memory" (Lorayne), "The Memory Book" (Lorayne and Lucas), "Use Your Perfect Memory" (Buzan), or "Learning How to Learn" (Lucas).
At one time a mnemonist named Dan Mikels memorized the entire LA phone book. My favorite of his practical contributions are, "Speed Spanish (I-III)" available from National Dynamics ( http://www.nationaldynamics.com/ ) and his mentorship of the SuperCamp ( http://www.supercamp.com/ ). I have had a number of friends who learned highly-passable Spanish (and other languages) in three weeks to a month.
"Dr. Blair's Spanish in No Time" (and other languages) builds extensively on memory techniques.
Jerry Lucas (former NBA player and Phi Beta Kappa member) has written some cool courses for himself and his company, Lucas Learning Systems. His book on Spanish is outstanding, He has a great book on "Becoming a Math Wizard", and even has an extensive program to memorize the New Testament. I'm a little disappointed that he didn't complete his series on grammar (I didn't even know there were 58 rules for capitalization!), and I wish he had written more on other subjects.
Pick up a book like, "50 Economics Ideas Everyone Should Know" or "Science 1001" and use the peg techniques to create mnemonic links to the ideas in such a way you will never forget them. This will give you a foundation for expanding your knowledge in a very practical way.
Whoops, I said Aristotle when I should have said Plato, and I said Oxford when I should have said Occidental. Brain farts...Note to self: Don't try to think when you're sleepy.
Someone who supports the Second Amendment is NOT necessarily a nut. And If you will re-read your History on the Constitution, you will find on both sides, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, felt that an armed citizenry was necessary to protect them from the abuses of Government.
There is no excuse or legitimate reason, in my mind, for gunning down Gifford. However, there are a lot of people "at the end of their rope" in the USA. They don't trust the government any more.
Republicans and Democrats BOTH have been giving away other people's money, spending like there is no tomorrow, and abusing their privileges. Obama has spent over 4 million dollars (supposedly of his own money) to prevent disclosure of his his birth certificate and school records, when a simple self-disclosure on those would reveal whether he is legitimately qualified, constitutionally, to hold his office. (Birth certificate aside, if he went to Oxford college (CA) or Columbia University as a foreign student, if he was an Indonesian foreign national as a child by dint of his mother's marriage to Soweto, and he didn't declare his preference for US Citizenship in his 21st year, then he may be an illegal alien.) And then it looks like he may have stuffed the Supreme Court with persons who will keep these Constitutional questions at bay. No wonder there is a high degree of frustration with people who believe in the Constitution.
Aristotle described three good forms and three bad forms of Government: The poor forms were Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Democracy, while the good forms were Benevolent Monarchy, Polity and Anarchy. ("Oligarchy" was rule by a ruling class and "Polity" was a representative government used in some of the City-States at the time and the blueprint for our Representative government.) The difference between the good forms and poor forms of government was that in the poor forms, the ruling group ruled in their own self-interest. The House and the Senate act more like oligarchs than representatives, and when one party can disenfranchise another by a simple democratic majority, then the Citizens' rights are not being adequately represented. It is those people who have given up hope that perform desperate, unlawful acts like gunning down Rep. Gifford.
I just read a book by Daniel Pink called, "Drive" where he says that much of our behavior is a result of "intrinsic" rewards. Light reading, good info.
It is more complicated than the simple knee-jerk reactions I see posted here. China is very productive and has a huge capacity for more productivity. However, China does not produce enough internally to sustain a higher standard of living for their growing population. At this time, they must export in order to create a better standard of living overall. Since they have an absolute competitive advantage in some areas, especially labor-intensive areas, they will export increasingly higher-quality goods to those countries that already have a high standard of living.
However, Chinese government takes the results of the increased productivity and allocates it to "desirable" industries. At this stage of their economic development this allocation works in many areas, but as the number of subsidized industries increases and mis-allocated funding proliferates, the government burden increases and robs the nation of its productive gains. As costs increase, prices go up both internally and externally, and China loses its absolute competitive advantage. Most of China is so far behind economically that there is a built in sink for productive output at this time, but China must trade with other nations in order to continue to prosper. When they can no longer trade competitively with other nations, those industries that emigrated to China will return home.
I remember reading a comic, called "Japan, Inc." many years ago, and I wondered then how Japan could sustain its Economic growth while violating these basic Economic principles. Guess what?: A few years later Japan's growth stalled and the absolute advantage went to places like Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines, and now China. Japan is still trying to recover.
Eventually, in the absence of major wars or worldwide catastrophe, most of the world's economies will be at parity, in which case, the USA will represent about 20-22% of the world consumption and trade. It appears at this time that the last areas to become affluent will be on the African subcontinent.
China cannot be its own best customer forever. Unfortunately, with increasing public debt and the propensity for the USA to try to spend its way to prosperity instead of produce its way to prosperity, the USA may have some real economic collapse that will adversely affect the rest of the world, and spoil the ride for everyone.
Cripe I'm old. I remember when writing a worm was an AI project. I also remember when air was clean and sex was dirty. It was all a long time ago...
Give them something entertaining and instructive to do: Introduce them to Core Wars. Modern viruses have little or nothing in common with EICAR any more. You could introduce almost all the concepts of a Comp 101 class through good Core Wars competition.
It sounds like you've found your niche. I hope you also have found a secure position doing what you like. I hope you have cleared out of the "electronic sweatshop" and are not competing for endless 3-month contracts against younger, cheaper code kiddies. I hope the work you do is satisfying and rewarding, and I hope you achieve enlightenment in this lifetime.
It also sounds like either you weren't suited for the profession you originally chose (Engineering), or your life took a turn in a different direction somewhere. Either way, you do not sound like someone trapped in their occupation, you are not one of those I am referring to, and I meant no offence.
Slashdot Mirror
Notice one of the comments pointed out that Borland Pascal was one of the fastest executing languages next to ASM. I remember that Borland Pascal (in 19991) executed almost 10 times faster than Borland C++ on a consistent basis on the same systems.
This only points out that tests need to compare apples and apples. I would be quite surprised if any C++ can execute a FFT as fast as my Leahy FORTRAN95.
If I was going to pick only one language to work with, it would probably be LISP, but Haskell comes a very close second. I like code that does exactly what I want it to do with no side effects.
There is much more to comparing languages than is reported in the article, including testing the language's suitability for a given task.
If you are just looking for a design environment, then Dreamweaver is probably as good as any.
If you are looking for real power and scalability in website design, try LISP or Erlang. Those will keep your brain cells sparking!
For a lucid argument on the need for generalists, read "Critical Path" by R. Buckminster Fuller.
I make apps for the desktop, usually Windows. I can see the point of the places that are "Microsoft shops" because specializing on one platform allows you to focus on mastering a coherent set of tools. I work over a number of platforms, and sometimes it is frustrating to have to slow down and familiarize myself with new development paradigms.
I was impressed with Silverlight, but not enough to make it a specialty. Two days ago I found Lightswitch for Windows Studio 2010, and I am truly impressed! It is by far and away the easiest way to make beautiful, useful apps for both the Windows desktop and the Web. When you need to get work done in a hurry, this is the way I would like to see all my environments work! One of my friends told me it is the best tool he's seen since Clarion.
I hope that MS doesn't abandon Silverlight, but I've heard concerns from more than one MS shop that they have been left out in the cold before, and they hate the feeling of insecurity in working with MS.
Yup, you are right. And I think this goes to my assertion that more countries are becoming prosperous enough to bid for resources that they could not bid for before. The people who really suffer are in the areas that haven't made the same economic progress, but must bid on the resources at the higher prices.
It is sad that this forum discourages you from carrying out a more complete argument.
It is true that when I was a kid, the norm was a one-earner family and Mom stayed home with the kids. Today's estimates show that the net advantage of most two-earner families is about 10% over the 50's and 60's. The main exception is the two-earner/no-children group, which generally wastes their early great advantage. The major culprit in this loss of purchasing power is a type of consumer inflation: When you have more money circulating, the cost of goods and services grows to absorb it. The second major culprit is the expense of sustaining the household without the economic input of the unpaid homemaker. Keep in mind, that 10% could make a family very prosperous, but most families waste it on present gratification of lesser wants rather than deferring gratification for prosperity.
Food costs have not actually doubled in terms of comparable dollars. However, the composition and quantity of "food" purchases is much different, and much of it is wasteful. And, government debt and overall money mismanagement have eroded the purchasing power of our money.
Some resources are not as available simply because populations that weren't prosperous enough to afford them are now competing with us (USA) to buy them. Oil and gas are major commodities in this category.
You have an interesting point when you compare China and India, but the population alone is not enough to determine who will become a world leader.
I do believe there will be catastrophic collapse in certain areas of the world, and I'm pretty sure that population will have a large part in the process, but I'm more inclined to view it as a system collapse than an inevitable result of population increases. I'm still convinced there is something right about System Dynamics and what the "Limits to Growth" groups ae analyzing, but I'm not convinced that those models actually predict anything more than mis-allocation of resources rather than inexorable, creeping disaster.
I'm all for making the whole world prosperous; Studies show that as societies become prosperous, populations drop and more resources are available to each individual.
Thanks for the info. I decided to check what you said and what I thought against the "Pocket World in Figures" on my shelf. Most of what you said is much more accurate than the impressions I got from friends in the Netherlands. I don't know why I thought that internet connection was free; I found references from friends living in other countries where it was free, but not from the Netherlands. (A friend of mine in Italy waited six months between ordering and getting hooked up.)
I checked the used car prices on autotrack and found that the price is a little higher, the cars are usually lower mileage, and the taxes quite a bit higher. Insurance is higher and NL has a pretty expensive road tax. Actual quantification eludes me.
The OECD database seems to indicate that disposable income is about 80% of a comparable US citizen's disposable income. However, it seems that Americans have a greater amount to blow away due to the much lower cost of consumer items. I guess I'm saying that a comparable sum will, at this time, buy more goods in the USA than in NL, because less of it goes to consumer taxes.
Browsing past editions of the PWiF, I see that the USA has dropped quite a bit in the past few years. In 2000, we had more disposable income than Germany, Japan and GB combined. As we adopt more socialistic practices and gather more debt, I suspect that the USA economic miracles will be at an end in few years.
There is nothing like a lot of facts to blow away my favorite presuppositions...
Well, according to my friends who actually live in the Netherlands, some are US expats, it is a great place to live. There are lots of social services, so the tax rate is close to 75%. Disposable income is a fraction of what it is in the USA. Houses are extremely hard to buy. Credit is very hard to come by. Life is dull, but secure.
The cost of a car is maybe the most expensive in the world. Consumer goods, such as computers and TV's (especially big-screen tv's) are typically twice what you would pay in the US (comparable dollars/euro). So, the top-of-the-line i7 Fujitsu laptop I bought for $3K would cost me about twice that in the Netherlands. ATT charges me $80/mo for my internet connection, which is free in the Netherlands (when and where available). It would only take me 6 years to recoup the cost of my laptop by having free, net neutral internet in the Netherlands if I don't include the cost of living and the loss of comparable income.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. The problem with our telecommunications system is that it is a broken market. In a free market world, the cost of services would go down as more people buy. One of the things that causes this broken market is lack of competition. When only two providers control 80%+ and the infrastructure is closed or extremely expensive, they can squeeze us by excessive tolls. When the day comes that the highest conduits are part of your city utilities and the there are competitive pipes between cities, you may see a significant drop in price for competitive services. Strange as it may seem, the pipeline industry provides a good model of competition providing the most volume to any destination at the lowest price. I can picure a day when "bandwidth brokers" are taking minute-by-minute bids on competitive communications pipes.
Another aspect of the situation: Net neutrality is a type of price control. Price control invariably causes shortages and lower quality of service. In a net-neutral world, the only people who will have the highest quality service will be those who can afford to bypass the common market and buy the elite services. (Try hooking up to Internet2.)
I think the Han solo weapon looks more like a mauser than a Luger.
This was actually a good discussion. Some of the responses were very informative. (And some of them were complete crap, of course.) the presence of FACTS in response to those questions makes it easier to identify frivolous claims and faulty arguments, and I would like to thank those who took the time to compose complete and factual answers.
I knew a woman in Alaska who had to decide, before she turned 22, whether to be a US citizen or Japanese. I thought she had to file a claim asserting her US Citizenship, but it may be that she had to assert a denial of US Citizenship.
A friend of mine, who is an immigration lawyer, says that the phrase, "under the jurisdiction of the United States" is a matter of controversy for the courts. Diplomats are not the only exemption to US Citizenship derived from being born on USA soil, and that the criteria are not as cut-and-dried as a non-lawyer may think.
In some people's minds, this won't be settled without a forensic examination of the birth certificate. Some pople won't be convinced even then, but I lump those people with the folks who think Elvis is still alive.
Also interesting, I noticed that I was modded 'way down (even though I thought the article was a presentation of reasonable questions). I have noticed in the past, that other posters get modded down on the basis of the popularity of their posts, rather than the quality of question or argument. I recently read an article where the psychologist claimed that the Internet was a major source of crowd-influenced, crowd-compliant opinion shaping. Are the sheep leading the discussions these days?
Newspaper articles have NEVER been sufficient to establish evidence. This is not an issue that should be calmly accepted because someone with a vested interest announced it to the news. It should be evaluated by an objective third party, and maybe by multiple third parties. Given the discussions just on /., would we doubt it is possible for some Intelligence, Law Enforcement, or slimy political public relations firm to plant or forge evidence?
I personally am willing to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, but that does not mean this is the only question regarding his eligibility for the Presidency.
Just because a person is born on American soil does not make that person a citizen. (Take the children of diplomats, for example.) Does the fact of one of his parents being a British National confer British citizenship on him? Dual citizenship? Does it depend on the laws in effect at the time of his birth? How does that affect his eligibility?
If his mother became an Indonesian citizen, doesn't that mean he, as a minor, was also an Indonesian citizen? Doesn't he have to file a form during his 21st year asserting his birthright to American citizenship? (If he didn't, is he an illegal alien?) Did he attend Occidental College and Columbia as a foreign student? If so, how does that affect his eligibility?
I am bothered more by the fact that Obama and his groups have spent millions of dollars trying to suppress attempts to find out the facts, than I am by crazy people spreading doubts about where he was born.
Granted, the limited scope of a discussion like this does not allow for detailed logical analysis. Nevertheless, "You need government taxation and spending to pay for stuff that requires long-term investment." is wrong! I object to your use of the word "need". Just consider that there are many other ways for government to finance infrastructure other than taxes. And much long-term government investment has only mis-allocated wealth. (The current recession seems to have stemmed from government mis-allocating money to the housing market, and then trying to "soften" the consequences by mis-allocating funds to other industries.) The earlier respondent making the point about increased opportunity costs actually made the argument better than I did.
Dismissing the article as "ultra-libertarian" fails to address the premise at all. (This is an egregious rhetorical fallacy...shame on you!) Like any science or technology, political viewpoint should not get in the way of describing what works. What works, works; what doesn't work, doesn't work; and you can do what doesn't work over and over again and it still won't work. Research in Economics over the last 40 years has clearly shown that a free market allocates wealth most efficiently, and according to an article in the Economic Review in 1992, over 95% of economists agree with this view. Almost all inefficiencies arise as a result of political interference. I like to think that good Economics is politically atheistic.
Politics does have its place; I have relatives in Sweden who admit that, while Sweden is a great place to live, they pay a lot and lose a lot to support their government-run welfare system. They seem to think it is worth the cost, but they have had to cut back drastically in the last 25 years because they overdid it and the costs were ruining their country.
You have changed the scope of the discussion from "What is the relationship of the high-speed rail under-performance to the anticipated upcoming China monetary crises?" to "What is the role of government?" If you think you have the answer, John Stossel (who professes to be a Libertarian) will pay you $1000 for each task you can prove that government can do better than private industry. (As far as I know, no one has earned any money yet.)
Yeah, China is about due. Japan and the USA (along with Greece, Ireland, Spain, and others) ignored basic economic principles and are paying the price. (I'm NOT talking about the Tsunami tragedy in Japan, but the stagnation of the economy.) "Stimulus" money has to come from the places where it's produced, and is a by-product of productivity. If you loan money to people or projects, those recipients need to have the means to pay it back. Governments do not produce anything, so they must get their money from those who are productive. To "stimulate" the economy, they are taking it from productive projects (Exports), skimming expenses off the top and then sending it back as "stimulus" funds. The other alternative is to create money out of thin air, which causes inflation. Either way, the so-called "stimulus" loses its effectiveness the more often it is used. Japan's last big stimulus attempts created almost no movement in their economy; not even short-term.
China's rail problem is not the cause of the bank problems: The cause is that banks were forced to loan money to unsound projects at unrealistic rates. China has huge amounts of "Sovereign Wealth" due to their absolute and competitive advantages over their Western customers, but they have no place to put it, internal to China. Distributing it to unsound projects wastes resources and unbalances the internal economy. Some infrastructure development could bolster the economy (like toll roads in the USA). However, the implication derived from the banker's statements is that the "tolls" from operating the railway are not sufficient to service the debts. Banks don't get their money back and the government gets to subsidize a losing project. (Sound familiar?)
Let me add something: The accessories you get will have a lot to do with the utility of your system. My T900 came with an ATT Air Card installed. It has been 4 months, and I STILL don't have it working. Fujitsu depended on ATT, ATT doesn't have a clue what they are doing and they depend on Sierra Wireless software, but nobody can tell me what type of air card it is. I've had ATT, Sierra, Fujitsu and two other ATT people on the line at the same time and they are all confused. After two hours of going back and forth...ATT cut off my phone call and when I called back they told me the call center was closed..call tomorrow.
As a tech/IT consultant, my inventory is time. Obviously, the drawback of my line of work is that I have to suffer through the early learning curve on on behalf of my clients. I just wish I could charge ATT the same rate for wasting my time that I have to charge my clients.
To my mind, the best tech equipment is the combination that gives me the best opportunity to be productive with the least hassle, even if it costs a bit more.
What do you want? If you are going to do graphics get lots of memory.
Choose a brand that has good tech support. Dell used to have the best tech support in the business, but it's now probably the worst. I lean toward Lenovo, Fujitsu and Toshiba. If you are doing a lot of multimedia, Sony is ok, but temperamental.
Most of the imperative languages I have used in the last 45 years have been easy to model, but not easy to prove mathematically at the same level of logic. They invariably needed to be proved in some customized Higher-Order-Language, and many times this was LISP or PROLOG.
Object-Oriented programming has the drawback of distributing data all over the system, and it tends to obscure the underlying structure of the problem space and the matching solutions. OOP is convenient for plugging completed subsystems into a larger system, and so it can be a boon to good application development. However, a program is simply a set of instructions that work on some data. (An object is still a set of instructions that works on data, but usually the object carries the data or an abstraction of the data within the scope of the object code.) It seems appropriate to me that beginning CS students should be concerned with controlling instructions against different data to learn the effective rules and processes. I would favor assembly and some imperative languages such as Pascal, FORTRAN or C to demonstrate the underlying principles, and then probably a functional programming language like Haskell for advanced concepts. While I wouldn't bother to teach a Pascal or FORTRAN class as an introduction to programming, I would certainly teach them as a requirement to a numerical methods class.
There is a difference between memory and skills. In order to do good Algebra you must have a specialized vocabulary of about 620 concepts and be able to make the distinctions among them. Using these tools is easier if you actually know what they are, but good usage comes from good practice.
Do not underestimate the power of mnemonics; They can greatly improve your performance in anything you do!
My first memory course was, "You Can Remember" by Dr. Bruno Furst. It came in a slipcover with twelve small lessons and a "dictionary" that converted numbers to mnemonics. It was advertised extensively in Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, and Mechanix Illustrated magazines in the 50's and 60's. I used some of those techniques for years, but I did not get really interested in memory systems until my 20's. I found a book called, "How to Develop a Super-Power Memory" by Harry Lorayne. I found it very useful, and it is the first book I ever owned I only had to read once to remember the contents. Since then I've acquired a good number of books on mnemonics, and, although there is much repetition from book to book, I occasionally find a new approach or insight that helps my learning.
If you are a student I reccommend, "Brainbooster" by Finkle, along with a general memory book such as, "How to Develop a Super-Power Memory" (Lorayne), "The Memory Book" (Lorayne and Lucas), "Use Your Perfect Memory" (Buzan), or "Learning How to Learn" (Lucas).
At one time a mnemonist named Dan Mikels memorized the entire LA phone book. My favorite of his practical contributions are, "Speed Spanish (I-III)" available from National Dynamics ( http://www.nationaldynamics.com/ ) and his mentorship of the SuperCamp ( http://www.supercamp.com/ ). I have had a number of friends who learned highly-passable Spanish (and other languages) in three weeks to a month.
"Dr. Blair's Spanish in No Time" (and other languages) builds extensively on memory techniques.
Jerry Lucas (former NBA player and Phi Beta Kappa member) has written some cool courses for himself and his company, Lucas Learning Systems. His book on Spanish is outstanding, He has a great book on "Becoming a Math Wizard", and even has an extensive program to memorize the New Testament. I'm a little disappointed that he didn't complete his series on grammar (I didn't even know there were 58 rules for capitalization!), and I wish he had written more on other subjects.
Pick up a book like, "50 Economics Ideas Everyone Should Know" or "Science 1001" and use the peg techniques to create mnemonic links to the ideas in such a way you will never forget them. This will give you a foundation for expanding your knowledge in a very practical way.
This is a GOOD thing!!!
Whoops, I said Aristotle when I should have said Plato, and I said Oxford when I should have said Occidental. Brain farts...Note to self: Don't try to think when you're sleepy.
Someone who supports the Second Amendment is NOT necessarily a nut. And If you will re-read your History on the Constitution, you will find on both sides, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, felt that an armed citizenry was necessary to protect them from the abuses of Government.
There is no excuse or legitimate reason, in my mind, for gunning down Gifford. However, there are a lot of people "at the end of their rope" in the USA. They don't trust the government any more.
Republicans and Democrats BOTH have been giving away other people's money, spending like there is no tomorrow, and abusing their privileges. Obama has spent over 4 million dollars (supposedly of his own money) to prevent disclosure of his his birth certificate and school records, when a simple self-disclosure on those would reveal whether he is legitimately qualified, constitutionally, to hold his office. (Birth certificate aside, if he went to Oxford college (CA) or Columbia University as a foreign student, if he was an Indonesian foreign national as a child by dint of his mother's marriage to Soweto, and he didn't declare his preference for US Citizenship in his 21st year, then he may be an illegal alien.) And then it looks like he may have stuffed the Supreme Court with persons who will keep these Constitutional questions at bay. No wonder there is a high degree of frustration with people who believe in the Constitution.
Aristotle described three good forms and three bad forms of Government: The poor forms were Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Democracy, while the good forms were Benevolent Monarchy, Polity and Anarchy. ("Oligarchy" was rule by a ruling class and "Polity" was a representative government used in some of the City-States at the time and the blueprint for our Representative government.) The difference between the good forms and poor forms of government was that in the poor forms, the ruling group ruled in their own self-interest. The House and the Senate act more like oligarchs than representatives, and when one party can disenfranchise another by a simple democratic majority, then the Citizens' rights are not being adequately represented. It is those people who have given up hope that perform desperate, unlawful acts like gunning down Rep. Gifford.
I just read a book by Daniel Pink called, "Drive" where he says that much of our behavior is a result of "intrinsic" rewards. Light reading, good info.
It is more complicated than the simple knee-jerk reactions I see posted here. China is very productive and has a huge capacity for more productivity. However, China does not produce enough internally to sustain a higher standard of living for their growing population. At this time, they must export in order to create a better standard of living overall. Since they have an absolute competitive advantage in some areas, especially labor-intensive areas, they will export increasingly higher-quality goods to those countries that already have a high standard of living.
However, Chinese government takes the results of the increased productivity and allocates it to "desirable" industries. At this stage of their economic development this allocation works in many areas, but as the number of subsidized industries increases and mis-allocated funding proliferates, the government burden increases and robs the nation of its productive gains. As costs increase, prices go up both internally and externally, and China loses its absolute competitive advantage. Most of China is so far behind economically that there is a built in sink for productive output at this time, but China must trade with other nations in order to continue to prosper. When they can no longer trade competitively with other nations, those industries that emigrated to China will return home.
I remember reading a comic, called "Japan, Inc." many years ago, and I wondered then how Japan could sustain its Economic growth while violating these basic Economic principles. Guess what?: A few years later Japan's growth stalled and the absolute advantage went to places like Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines, and now China. Japan is still trying to recover.
Eventually, in the absence of major wars or worldwide catastrophe, most of the world's economies will be at parity, in which case, the USA will represent about 20-22% of the world consumption and trade. It appears at this time that the last areas to become affluent will be on the African subcontinent.
China cannot be its own best customer forever. Unfortunately, with increasing public debt and the propensity for the USA to try to spend its way to prosperity instead of produce its way to prosperity, the USA may have some real economic collapse that will adversely affect the rest of the world, and spoil the ride for everyone.
Cripe I'm old. I remember when writing a worm was an AI project. I also remember when air was clean and sex was dirty. It was all a long time ago...
Give them something entertaining and instructive to do: Introduce them to Core Wars. Modern viruses have little or nothing in common with EICAR any more. You could introduce almost all the concepts of a Comp 101 class through good Core Wars competition.
It sounds like you've found your niche. I hope you also have found a secure position doing what you like. I hope you have cleared out of the "electronic sweatshop" and are not competing for endless 3-month contracts against younger, cheaper code kiddies. I hope the work you do is satisfying and rewarding, and I hope you achieve enlightenment in this lifetime.
It also sounds like either you weren't suited for the profession you originally chose (Engineering), or your life took a turn in a different direction somewhere. Either way, you do not sound like someone trapped in their occupation, you are not one of those I am referring to, and I meant no offence.