I am curious. Does Linux also do all these things?
Hardware makers can just make their own changes to Linux, which eliminates the hassle and compromises when dealing with Microsoft. Unfortunately, hardware supplier support for Linux tends to be spotty based on market need.
How is Intel a 'partner'? They aren't an OEM, they're a component maker. Intel should no more be a Microsoft partner than, say, Seagate or nVidia.
I would hope all those companies have some sort of partnership with Microsoft. It's in the best interest of everybody to understand what the other is doing. Microsoft should understand how Seagate handles data, what graphics capabilities are on the nVidia roadmap, and what changes to instructions and new capabilities are coming down the line for new CPUs. One example where communication with other component suppliers is SSDs, and the changes to software needed to better handle data for performance and reliability. Microsoft better be talking to the drive manufacturers directly, not with Dell, so they come up with a total solution for both hardware and software sides.
That said I find the idea of a non-paying internship to be ridiculous. My time is just as valuable as anyone else's and if a company doesn't respect me enough to pay me for the time I spend working for them then I wouldn't have anything to do with them. It is simply condescending to argue that a company is providing hands-on experience so they don't need to provide monetary compensation as well.
Any company with an intership program, paid or not, respects the people they hire. Even unpaid interns have a bunch of overhead costs associated with them, in terms of recruiting, background checks, management, etc. - so "free" labor, isn't free. I prefer to think of internships as an intensive lab class; the only real difference is that instead of doing something strictly for the sake of academic progress, your accomplishments are actually contributing to the industry.
I think Obama will give NASA the $2 billion. It's a stimulus to the economy, something it badly needs.... He may even reverse Bush's decision to go to the Moon and instead go to Mars first. If he wants Florida in the bag in 2012, he probably will also extend the Shuttle for a couple years.
Spending on operations is one of the least effective ways to stimulate the economy. Stimulus is not just about government spending, it's about government investment. One of the great things that came out of the massive spedning in WWII was a bunch of new infrastructure. Roads, powerlines, factories, and trained workers, were sitting idle after the war making it easy to start new businesses. Spending money on flying the space shuttle will have a much smaller effect on a real economic rebound than investing in the development of more cost effective space transport - whether it's new vehicles, or enabling the private sector. To make an analogy, if you're unemployed, now is not the time to take out a loan and buy a new TV to stimulate the economy, it's time to take out a loan and go to school for new training - stimulate the economy and be more productive when the economy recovers.
How can you retire the shuttle fleet without replacement? Is it that unimportant to certain people? It's hard to imagine for me that there are people out there who are not inspired by NASA's endeavors.
I think you have it backwards. The important question to ask is how can we justify keeping the shuttle fleet around? Is inspiration really worth that many hundreds of millions of dollars? I'm not saying the space program needs to go away, unmanned missions have far more cost-benefit than manned missions. What's wrong with taking a pause in continuing the expensive endeavour of putting folks in space until it becomes more economic? Take the budget for operations and invest it in better systems, and support development of spaceflight by private industry and you'll be better off in the long run.
I was pulling $15 hr 15 years backs as an EE intern. My intern at IBM did help a ton though. In fact I ended up getting 4 different offers at different IBM locations (didn't take any of them though).
I interned at IBM 10 years ago (did they make you take the stupid IQ test at the end of your internship too?) I remember going through the job fair line with my friend who was a ChemE 3.9 GPA, his resume got put on the "we'll call you" pile. I had a 3.2 GPA, but because I had an IBM internship, I was immediately asked to come in and interview the next day while the recruiters were still in town. Interview was more like a recruitment pitch talking about the neat things they were doing in the fab, specifically we chatted about SOI since my background was Mat Sci with emphasis on semiconductor physics and processing. That 6-month internship was worth more than 4 years of college in terms of getting a career. I also turned down an offer from IBM, but having solid experience at a recognized company opened a lot of doors.
I went to college a few years back, in the nineties, and I didn't get paid for an intern job. Neither did any of my classmates. Is that something companies do now?
Probably depends on the field of study you are interested in and how many candidates are available. I was an undergrad materials engineering intern in the late 90's for IBM, $20/hour; but I had some friends interested in web development who got half as much for their internship since it was during the dotcom boom and so many students were interested in the web. My media arts friends were getting minimum wage because that industry had even more candidates and lower standards.
As required under Sections 512(c)(3) and 512(d)(3) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. ??512(c)(3) and 512(d)(3)), we are instructed to place you on notice that:
1. The Owner is the exclusive owner of the copyrights in and to the human DNA, RNA, and all other information contained therein
2. Decryption of aforementioned encrypted information constitutes an unlawful cicumvention of encryption technology
Please cease and desist from further decryption of stated copyright information and publication of previously acquired DNA information.
Just like the parents that have successfully sued the alcohol companies for people OD'ing.....o wait
You don't have to be successful to cost a company a bunch of money look at the lawsuits against alcohol ads earlier this decade , not to mention bars or other points of sale getting sued. Illegal drugs would be far more targeted than alcohol, herbal suppliments, or even tobacco (which has been sued successfully) and in terms of the public mindset, juries would be much easier to convince to give money.
Do you mean like how thousands of people OD on aspirin and therefore its no longer available?
A significant number of those overdoses are intentional or related to children. Also the drug does not physically promote overdose, and in fact does the opposite - which is why people dissolve out the opiate portion of vicodin.
IF illegal drugs become legal, then those same over the counter medications will STILL be responsible for more OD's than newly legalized drugs.
No, they would surpass legal drugs because they become more available. You'd start to see significant numbers of children under 10 accidentally overdosing (as they do now on non-prescription medications), and have more overdoses from drug interactions (>30% of heroin users have overdosed at some point).
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians - "Open up your hearts and let the Patrick Swayze Christmas in" - A Christmas classic, so popular the movie itself got aired on TBS a few years later Cave Dwellers - it typifies all the early 80's Conan knockoffs Pod People - "Good, He's the best"..."It Stinks" Mitchell - "Mitchell" Sidehackers - "Side hacking is the thing to do..."
Some drugs would be sold to adults through government approved stores. I assume the main component of their price would be tax based. However, it is easy for the government to control the taxes to eliminate the black market. The price might even be slightly higher than a potential black market, but I assume most consumers would prefer to buy from a source of know quality with no legal ramifications. (Consider alcohol as an example.) This would effectively put the black market out of business, and generate a new revenue stream for the government instead of funding organized crime, gangs, and terrorists.
It's not like the price of legal drugs are low, Zolpidem (generic ambien) is ~$3 a pill (without insurance) from a legit brick pharmacy - and it takes a few to get high. Unlike alcohol and cigarrettes, the danger of a short term injury the type easiest to litigate, with illegal drugs (marajuana being an exception) is much higher. I'm also sure the government won't allow pure stuff to be sold, you'll end up with tiny little "recommended" doses (a couple mg a pill), at $2 a pop and have to take 5 or 10 to get the euphoric effect. The combination of inelastic demand, government regulation, and litigation risk means few suppliers and higher prices.
Decriminalization of all drugs probably won't have the effect most people believe. Though targeted changes for drugs like pot can have a positive net impact because the drug works and is consumed in a manner closer to the cigarrette/alcohol model.
And they'd have problems with that since they have no patent on pot: other drug companies would just sell for cheaper until the price was just above the cost of production.
As I said before your assumptions work for most goods, but even the legal drug market is highly regulated. Not every company is going to just jump in and produce heroin or cocaine, not because of patents - but because of litigation. Guess who is going to get sued the first time somebody overdoses, or gets into a car accident? Legal, non-patented drugs like Zolpidem have price tags of ~$3 a pill so it's not cheap, a dime bag is probably a cheaper better high.
Step 2: You're basicly done, you've knocked the bottom out of the drug buisness, you are now the distributor and you have no reason to try to get more people addicted. Drug dealers can no longer make any profit out of getting kids addicted since they just go to you when it starts costing money.
So you end up with a situation where the legal drug cartels (eg Pfizer) step in, and sell at jacked up prices to the insurance companies. So the drugs are cheap to get as long as you're covered, but for those without insurance, the poor who are more likely to use drugs will turn to the black market again to get their "cheap" fixes. Nothing gets fixed, and the cost to society increases as more people get addicted and will need to be treated.
All that said, methamphetamine is a very hard problem. I am not sure how to deal with that one best. Every other drug can be made less harmful by being regulated, since the greatest portion of harm comes from its legal status and not pharmacological effects. Meth has much worse pharmacological effects than most drugs, but I still think we'd be better off treating meth users as sick instead of criminal.
While this would work for most goods on the black market, prices wouldn't change much for illegal drugs. It's cheaper to buy some illegal drugs than legal ones because of massive regulation and liability. Just wait until a heroin user's family sues because their kid OD'd. The drug industry as a whole is screwed up, legal or illegal
If you need formal education for that - let alone higher education - God help you. Where I come from, that sort of thing was generally considered "not being an asshole", not a complicated subject that required in-depth study.
If you want to paint the world as black and white that's true. Philosophy helps one to ask the right questions and have intelligent discussions on things like if a society actually benefits from a fraction of people who are "assholes."
however, a draft for something like world war ii made sense, since the threat pretty much was dire to the united states. a europe consolidated under nazism or the far east consolidated under imperial japan were direct and real existential threats to the usa.
So if an Imperial Japan far east was a threat, how was a Communist far east not a threat? You can't look at Vietnam in a vacuum; post WWII there was dramitic change with Communist revolutions globally. You can't seperate what occurred in Vietnam with what was going on in Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. Essentially the US saw the same "threat" of an expanding enemy that was seen with Germany and Japan. Though Communist revolutions were not really part of a coordinated conspiracy, based on what was occuring at the time (mixed with fear) it could have been interpreted that way. Vietnam really was just an extension of the same philosophy applied in Korea.
Vulcan is in the 40 Eridani star system, aka Omicron Eridani, not Epsilon Eridani.
This is Omicron Eridani.... Epsilon Eridani exploded six months after we were left here. The shock shifted the orbit of this solar system and everything was laid waste. Admiral Kirk...never bothered to check on our progress.
1. Adding an incompetent manager on the next layer doesn't fix it. It just makes the total problem even worse. You can't say it's ok to add an incompetent boss, just because a lot of those under him will be incompetent too.
I'm not saying that adding an incompetent manager fixes things, or engineers are out of touch. I'm saying there is a pre-existing stigma from engineers that the manager is incompetent (same with technicians and engineers). Many times this perception comes from the fact that those at lower levels don't have the same information and don't have to take into account a larger business picture. While it would be nice to please everybody and have the perfect design, you're going to run into compromises even when the whole team works together. You typically end up with a waterfall effect pissing people off; a good team will have sufficient communication so people understand why compromises are made, but even then not everybody will agree with the outcome. For example the marketing folks identify product requirements and the target price, which ends up holding back the engineers who need to create an "inferior" design, which forces technicians to deal with some annoyances in production or repair. Everybody can be doing the "right thing" and still piss off other groups with competing needs; even if the engineer decided to ignore the cost target and make the design more maintainable, all he's done is made the job of sales more difficult.
That's the job of management: to manage it all.
Yes, with the understanding that they are managing to maximize the ability of the business to succeed, not necessarily making everybody happy. Getting back to the original point, it's easy to point and say that a manager is incompetent, because they made the "wrong" decision. When in actuality they made the "correct" decision given the information they had at the time. Rarely do you have all the engineers on a complex project agreeing on every aspect - whether it's different engineering groups, or even engineers within the same group.
I have no problem to believe that suggestions and faults report of engineers where just ignored by some manager that decided that by doing so he will be in charge to build two projects (the faulty one and the possibly working one)
You know many technicians, mechanics, and repairmen have a similar complaint about engineers - really smart people who don't know a damn thing about physically working on something. The Dilbert-esque manager is a simplistic stereotype, when the problems are likely much more complicated.
Point is, games these days are incredibly complex. We're talking multi million dollar budgets, with blockbuster titles reaching the hundred millions. 100+ person programming teams. Kids coming out of a quickie game design degree are going to be poorly prepared, if at all, for this complexity. And it's not fair, because designing games is a process that strengthens programming and general logic abilities.
You're looking at games from a completely ground-up approach. A 2 year curriculum could teach enough skills and background to create commercial-level game mods.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardware makers can just make their own changes to Linux, which eliminates the hassle and compromises when dealing with Microsoft. Unfortunately, hardware supplier support for Linux tends to be spotty based on market need.
I would hope all those companies have some sort of partnership with Microsoft. It's in the best interest of everybody to understand what the other is doing. Microsoft should understand how Seagate handles data, what graphics capabilities are on the nVidia roadmap, and what changes to instructions and new capabilities are coming down the line for new CPUs.
One example where communication with other component suppliers is SSDs, and the changes to software needed to better handle data for performance and reliability. Microsoft better be talking to the drive manufacturers directly, not with Dell, so they come up with a total solution for both hardware and software sides.
We need more, just look at what happened to the Golgafrinchans when they got rid of them.
Any company with an intership program, paid or not, respects the people they hire. Even unpaid interns have a bunch of overhead costs associated with them, in terms of recruiting, background checks, management, etc. - so "free" labor, isn't free.
I prefer to think of internships as an intensive lab class; the only real difference is that instead of doing something strictly for the sake of academic progress, your accomplishments are actually contributing to the industry.
Spending on operations is one of the least effective ways to stimulate the economy. Stimulus is not just about government spending, it's about government investment. One of the great things that came out of the massive spedning in WWII was a bunch of new infrastructure. Roads, powerlines, factories, and trained workers, were sitting idle after the war making it easy to start new businesses. Spending money on flying the space shuttle will have a much smaller effect on a real economic rebound than investing in the development of more cost effective space transport - whether it's new vehicles, or enabling the private sector.
To make an analogy, if you're unemployed, now is not the time to take out a loan and buy a new TV to stimulate the economy, it's time to take out a loan and go to school for new training - stimulate the economy and be more productive when the economy recovers.
I think you have it backwards. The important question to ask is how can we justify keeping the shuttle fleet around? Is inspiration really worth that many hundreds of millions of dollars? I'm not saying the space program needs to go away, unmanned missions have far more cost-benefit than manned missions.
What's wrong with taking a pause in continuing the expensive endeavour of putting folks in space until it becomes more economic? Take the budget for operations and invest it in better systems, and support development of spaceflight by private industry and you'll be better off in the long run.
I interned at IBM 10 years ago (did they make you take the stupid IQ test at the end of your internship too?)
I remember going through the job fair line with my friend who was a ChemE 3.9 GPA, his resume got put on the "we'll call you" pile. I had a 3.2 GPA, but because I had an IBM internship, I was immediately asked to come in and interview the next day while the recruiters were still in town. Interview was more like a recruitment pitch talking about the neat things they were doing in the fab, specifically we chatted about SOI since my background was Mat Sci with emphasis on semiconductor physics and processing.
That 6-month internship was worth more than 4 years of college in terms of getting a career. I also turned down an offer from IBM, but having solid experience at a recognized company opened a lot of doors.
Probably depends on the field of study you are interested in and how many candidates are available. I was an undergrad materials engineering intern in the late 90's for IBM, $20/hour; but I had some friends interested in web development who got half as much for their internship since it was during the dotcom boom and so many students were interested in the web. My media arts friends were getting minimum wage because that industry had even more candidates and lower standards.
RE: NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We act on behalf of God (the "Owner").
As required under Sections 512(c)(3) and 512(d)(3) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. ??512(c)(3) and 512(d)(3)), we are instructed to place you on notice that:
1. The Owner is the exclusive owner of the copyrights in and to the human DNA, RNA, and all other information contained therein
2. Decryption of aforementioned encrypted information constitutes an unlawful cicumvention of encryption technology
Please cease and desist from further decryption of stated copyright information and publication of previously acquired DNA information.
Death is a feature... please consult your owners manual or contact customer service for more information - God
You don't have to be successful to cost a company a bunch of money look at the lawsuits against alcohol ads earlier this decade , not to mention bars or other points of sale getting sued.
Illegal drugs would be far more targeted than alcohol, herbal suppliments, or even tobacco (which has been sued successfully) and in terms of the public mindset, juries would be much easier to convince to give money.
A significant number of those overdoses are intentional or related to children. Also the drug does not physically promote overdose, and in fact does the opposite - which is why people dissolve out the opiate portion of vicodin.
No, they would surpass legal drugs because they become more available. You'd start to see significant numbers of children under 10 accidentally overdosing (as they do now on non-prescription medications), and have more overdoses from drug interactions (>30% of heroin users have overdosed at some point).
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians - "Open up your hearts and let the Patrick Swayze Christmas in" - A Christmas classic, so popular the movie itself got aired on TBS a few years later
Cave Dwellers - it typifies all the early 80's Conan knockoffs
Pod People - "Good, He's the best"..."It Stinks"
Mitchell - "Mitchell"
Sidehackers - "Side hacking is the thing to do..."
BTW Season 3 was amazing
It's not like the price of legal drugs are low, Zolpidem (generic ambien) is ~$3 a pill (without insurance) from a legit brick pharmacy - and it takes a few to get high. Unlike alcohol and cigarrettes, the danger of a short term injury the type easiest to litigate, with illegal drugs (marajuana being an exception) is much higher. I'm also sure the government won't allow pure stuff to be sold, you'll end up with tiny little "recommended" doses (a couple mg a pill), at $2 a pop and have to take 5 or 10 to get the euphoric effect.
The combination of inelastic demand, government regulation, and litigation risk means few suppliers and higher prices.
Decriminalization of all drugs probably won't have the effect most people believe. Though targeted changes for drugs like pot can have a positive net impact because the drug works and is consumed in a manner closer to the cigarrette/alcohol model.
As I said before your assumptions work for most goods, but even the legal drug market is highly regulated. Not every company is going to just jump in and produce heroin or cocaine, not because of patents - but because of litigation. Guess who is going to get sued the first time somebody overdoses, or gets into a car accident? Legal, non-patented drugs like Zolpidem have price tags of ~$3 a pill so it's not cheap, a dime bag is probably a cheaper better high.
So you end up with a situation where the legal drug cartels (eg Pfizer) step in, and sell at jacked up prices to the insurance companies. So the drugs are cheap to get as long as you're covered, but for those without insurance, the poor who are more likely to use drugs will turn to the black market again to get their "cheap" fixes.
Nothing gets fixed, and the cost to society increases as more people get addicted and will need to be treated.
While this would work for most goods on the black market, prices wouldn't change much for illegal drugs. It's cheaper to buy some illegal drugs than legal ones because of massive regulation and liability. Just wait until a heroin user's family sues because their kid OD'd.
The drug industry as a whole is screwed up, legal or illegal
If you want to paint the world as black and white that's true.
Philosophy helps one to ask the right questions and have intelligent discussions on things like if a society actually benefits from a fraction of people who are "assholes."
So if an Imperial Japan far east was a threat, how was a Communist far east not a threat? You can't look at Vietnam in a vacuum; post WWII there was dramitic change with Communist revolutions globally. You can't seperate what occurred in Vietnam with what was going on in Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. Essentially the US saw the same "threat" of an expanding enemy that was seen with Germany and Japan. Though Communist revolutions were not really part of a coordinated conspiracy, based on what was occuring at the time (mixed with fear) it could have been interpreted that way. Vietnam really was just an extension of the same philosophy applied in Korea.
There is a limited supply of oil, so eventually cars will be useless - Doesn't stop people from purchasing and enjoying them in the present.
This is Omicron Eridani. ... Epsilon Eridani exploded six months after we were left here. The shock shifted the orbit of this solar system and everything was laid waste. Admiral Kirk ...never bothered to check on our progress.
I'm not saying that adding an incompetent manager fixes things, or engineers are out of touch.
I'm saying there is a pre-existing stigma from engineers that the manager is incompetent (same with technicians and engineers). Many times this perception comes from the fact that those at lower levels don't have the same information and don't have to take into account a larger business picture.
While it would be nice to please everybody and have the perfect design, you're going to run into compromises even when the whole team works together. You typically end up with a waterfall effect pissing people off; a good team will have sufficient communication so people understand why compromises are made, but even then not everybody will agree with the outcome.
For example the marketing folks identify product requirements and the target price, which ends up holding back the engineers who need to create an "inferior" design, which forces technicians to deal with some annoyances in production or repair. Everybody can be doing the "right thing" and still piss off other groups with competing needs; even if the engineer decided to ignore the cost target and make the design more maintainable, all he's done is made the job of sales more difficult.
Yes, with the understanding that they are managing to maximize the ability of the business to succeed, not necessarily making everybody happy. Getting back to the original point, it's easy to point and say that a manager is incompetent, because they made the "wrong" decision. When in actuality they made the "correct" decision given the information they had at the time. Rarely do you have all the engineers on a complex project agreeing on every aspect - whether it's different engineering groups, or even engineers within the same group.
You know many technicians, mechanics, and repairmen have a similar complaint about engineers - really smart people who don't know a damn thing about physically working on something. The Dilbert-esque manager is a simplistic stereotype, when the problems are likely much more complicated.
You're looking at games from a completely ground-up approach. A 2 year curriculum could teach enough skills and background to create commercial-level game mods.
You mean like Lewt Warz