I think those programmers don't want to have to write reems of documentation. They just want to code.
In that respect, those programmers aren't necessarily engineers. In the bridge analogy, they would be the construction workers. They don't necessarily want to write the plans for the bridge, they just want to build the damn thing.
Software engineers are more akin to the architects and designers. Sure, they want to build the bridge too but they like to lay it all out and have others handle the implementation.
I get the feeling that most programmers on here just want to be programmers. They don't want to deal with all the peer reviews and meetings, nor writing up designs etc. . They just want to code.
Programmers and software engineers are related and some people are both, but they are different.
I think that businesses don't make enough of a distinction between programmers and engineers. I believe this is one of the contributing factors to the problems we see today.
The way I see it, using the bridge analogy, businesses hire bunches of construction workers, but they don't have any (or understaffed) architects.
And I've noticed that even when an architect says that such and such a part cannot be done is X amount of time, they are overruled anyway.
The problem is two-fold. You have the workers, but no designer. And even if you have the designer, no one listens to him.
No objections. In an ideal world, this would work all the time. But it doesn't.
The software industry is too competitive. You can process a rock solid product in time A and a cost B. But there 50 other ompanies out there that will say we can do it in A/2 and at a cost of B/4. It doesn't matter that you gave realistic estimates. Unless you have good raport with that customer, they will go for the one that says they can develope faster and cost less.
When deadlines loom, testing and QA get cut. Features can not be cut because the customer will not pay or take his business elsewhere next time. But testing and QA can be cut because there are no consequences (the whole "developer is not responsible for wrecking your data" clause).
Now, if software were more like th auto industry, where you ARE liable if an engine explodes, then you'd see a lot more stable products on the market with a lot fewer defects. That's when the math models and process will shine.
But in the world of new tech coming out every few months and people making ludicrous deadlines with insane amount of features, it's just not going work out that well.
So let's get back to the bridge builder. He knows his materials. He knows the geographical integrity of the area. He knows how much land he'll need. And he has a good idea how much weight the bridge will neeed to support.
Before the first whole is dug, he has a blueprint. This blue print went through several commitee's and reviews. All the data has been at least double checked. He knows all the dimensions, all the materials, and costs for that bridge.
Now why can't software engineering be like this?
The answer is simple. How many times has steel changed in the past 6 months, 12 months, or 18 months?
How many times has the format of blue prints changed in said time span?
In general, how often does the geological stabilty of an area change?
How often do things like concrete, nail-guns, etc. change in 18 months?
The problem with trying to apply a fixed solid process to software engineering is the fact that the whole thing changes so fast that by the time some standard is approved, it needs to be changed again.
And then, of course, the process only works when everyone follows it. This includes the customer. Good luck on that one.
Can you imagine how pissed a bridge builder would be if they were half way through and then the city comes by and says "we want all the bolts to be eight sided, and we won't pay you until it's done"?
This is the REAL WORLD of software developement. Sure, you can have internal procedures they may make life a little easier but that is of little help when you're management has to deal with an irate customer because he never reviewed the design.
SEI CMMI? Yep. Works like a charm doesn't it? There are plenty of companies who are CMMI 5 but this still happens.
And it will continue to happen until certain individuals realize that software is just as complex, if not more so than an engine. You don't slap one together and shove it in a car for consumers without giving it a solid saftey test. Software should be exactly the same.
But with all the software companies lobbying congress, I seriously doubt will have any sort of software "standards" in the near future.
Hmmmm...yes, those evil video games. Filled with all those vile polygons depicting sex and violence. Yeah...those evil video games....
Not like the that rape a genocide spree over in the Sudan. Not even close. Video games are much worse.
Or that war over in Iraq. Real life beheadings and car bombings flinging body parts and dead babies around is a sunday morning at the chapel compared to video games.
Or having preachers repeatedly tell your children that they burn in hell for all eternity for their sins. Or the sick media fascination with Schiavo case. Or the high school killing rampage in the mid-west. Or sex-abuse murder case down in Florida. Or the infanticide by Yates. Or the death and destruction of the tsunami or....
Games? The media spews forth all the putrescence of human filth every day across the internet, TV, and newspapers and HR Clinton thinks it's the games?
WTF? When are ignorant people going to learn that games are not the cause of the problem, we are. Games are escapism and fantasy, not reality. Games allow us to take on roles that we'd never play in real life. You can be gun toting killing machine or a raw adventurer trying to save the world. You can be a cold calculating murderer, or the detective trying to hunt him down. How is this harmful?
Maybe you want to be the bad guy. Maybe you want to be the good guy. These games allow people to do that. Safely.
Millions, let me emphasize that, MILLIONS of kids and adults play games every single day. It's not really surprising that out of that group that there are some wackos. I seriously doubt that the percentage is any higher than that of non-game players.
I think that the real problems affecting children have to do with reality. You have to admit our world is pretty messed up place, and alot of parents pour the reality-show, ratings-driven, lowest-common denominator trash right into their kids heads.
Children have little concept of the world. It is our jobs as PARENTS to be the EDUCATORS and the PROVIDERS. That's all the kids have. If you choose to let the media educate your children, you have to deal with the consequences.
It does no good to point fingers when you're standing in a room of mirrors.
From looking at the video and images, I have an observation.
If you look carefully at the sequence with regular atmospheric pressure, and the others you'll notice something about the droplets. The less air pressure, the more rounded they are.
When the distended drops hit the surface, the strike it differently than there round drop cousins. More drop hits the surface, and with a little bit of an angle. The spreading liquid on bottom hits the incoming liquid and spreads outward with the just enough angle so that it can catch a little air.
A low viscosities, a fluid has more ability to get "out-of-its-own-way". Lowering atmospheric pressure also removes another impediment to this. The higher the viscosity, the harder it is for the drop to spread without splashing and the more sesitive it is to leading edge distortins. The Distension in droplets of material are most likely related to the viscocity of fluid. It may even be proportional.
Along these lines, technological advancement will eventually give us the choice of whether or not we continue along the path of evolution naturally or do we augment it.
If there were genetic mutations that we could inject into ourselves that would be able to prevent cancer, cure disabilties, and enhance our lifespan is it really better to deny ourselves such things?
Once humans master DNA, the next step beyond that is to make us "better", to remove the defects that plague our genes, to increase our intelligence.
Is it not good for us to increase the quality of life for ourselves and humaniy?
Or is it better to let thousands suffer and die due to defects that will be cured "in due time" by nature?
"LOL. I doubt any part of Nevada is "10,000 times the normal radiation level" now, and certainly none of it would be hundreds of millions of years from now when some hypothetical intelligent species evolves. Thanks for the laugh though. "
I think he was referring to the Yucca mountain storage facility for nuclear waste.
As fas a global warming is concerned, it's pretty simple really.
FACT: Humans are pumping billions of tons of methane, CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.
FACT: These are proven green-house gases.
FACT: Billions of tons of greenhouse gases + solar radiation = warmer temperatures.
The effects are cumulative. Even if our output was causing a.01 degree increase per year, that's still an enormous amount of heat energy.
I think the argument of "how much our we affecting our environment" is ludicrous. The fact that we ARE affecting global temperatures at all should give us pause.
And the fact that we can't reverse what we've done should really make us think.
99.9% of what you call experts were members of the clergy. It was in their best interest to keep the populace ignorant so they could maintain their religious empire.
Science was not a very big calling during the dark and middle ages.
As far as global warming is concerned, by the time you see what you would call "proof", it would already be too late.
As it is, many are already saying it's to late and the best we can do is prepare.
"But does the average desk jockey need a 3GHz processor."
"Why would anyone need more than 640K?"
There seems to be a popular misconception on slashdot the averag Joe Beermaster doesn't use the computer for anything more than some email, word processing, a surfing.
It's been my experience that people are beginning to catch up with the technology. There are those of us who are ahead of the curve (nerds like us), those in the middle of the curve (mostly the up and coming generation and anyone who's around computers enough), and people below the curve (the horror stories of tech support).
I see a lot more people using digital cameras and digital video cameras and processing them on their PC's. I see a lot of people playing intense 3D games. I see a lot of people doing audio processing.
This takes up lots of space and lots of processing power.
I disagree with both you and Carr. As time goes along, people are becoming less afraid and more confident in their computer use. With confidence comes more exploration and more discovery. The curve moves forward.
Once people learn the potential of what computers are capable of, we'll probably see another surge of higher end computer buying/using.
I view the current situation as one that has happened many times in the past. Society and people change more slowly than technology, but they'll eventually catch up.
No, but apparently you are. You're posts are still being ratd at one. The quality is that of an arrogant 6th grader. And apparrntly, you still haven't yet grasped the point of my original post.
"USB to serial converter. Do you actually believe this turns a serial port into a USB port?"
Now you're being a jackass again. Instead of saying something reasonable like, "Oh...my bad. I misinterpreted what you had orignally posted." you go on to make yourself into a bigger ass.
No. A usb to serial converter does not turn a serial port into a USB port. Nor could this ever be possible as USB and Serial use totally different hardware, clockgens, ioports, and transfer speeds. A USB to serial converter merely translates the incoming data stream to standard serial pinouts. The max serial output is 115Kbps, so it is also slower.
But if you had an iota of intelligence, you might have realized something.
UNIVERSAL SERIAL BUS. Now think really hard and try to figure out what USB was based on. That's right, the "old and useless" serial architeture.
That is, the same serial architecture that is used for diagnostic ports on various robotics and machinery. And the very same architecture that can be found in a lot of modern day cars that are used to run engine diagnostics. This is also the same architecture that is used for a lot of modern day commercial "GOTO" telescopes.
Yeah that old useless serial bus. Just like that old interstate freeway system. Completely useless.
Just like your inane, offtopic, pressumptuous assinine posts.
You're as ignorant as you are arrogant. Firstly, my post was made mostly as a joke. Since you seem to take such an offense to it, perhaps you have some personal issues to work through.
But I'm feeling a bit confrontational, so here's a reply to your asshat type response.
"However, believe it or not, cars don't get twice as fast every 18 months!"
Neither do computers, or have you not be paying attention to benchmarks? The number of transistors double roughly every 18 months. The clock speed doesn't necessarily go along with this. Take the AMD 64 for example. The 3400+ model runs along at 2.2 GHz. Has that doubled from 18 months ago?
Your relationship between car speed and cpu speed is a false analogy. Their systems, and the laws of physics that they abide by, work under completely different circumstances.
"So it seems that your analogy falls afucking part there."
Not really genious. My point was that most average Joe's don't have the money to blow on the latest and greatest toys. If something they have works and it does what they need, there is little reason for them to upgrade. This goes for couches, cars, or computers.
Take, for example, EPA regulations regarding car pollution. Do people buy a new $40000 car to meet the regulations? Or do they buy the $1000 catalytic converter upgrade for their 1993 Honda? Jackass.
"besides, this analogy was fucking stupid from the start"
Sort of like you're pointless use of obscenities. Jackass.
"Cars do one primary thing, get you somewhere."
Do you live in a cave? If you hadn't noticed, a lot of people consider their car to be much more that a transportation device. That's why we have shows like "Pimp My Ride" and the like. Jackass.
"Once you're there it really doesn't matter what car you have."
There are a lot of people who would beg to differ with you on this one. Jackass.
"However, computers are *general* computing machines. They can be programmed to do more than one function. So you can type up a document just like they did 40 years ago, AND you can render your home video like they didn't 4 years ago, and you will be able to do whatever you can program a turing complete machine to do."
And this relates to...what exactly? The point was people don't spend money if they don't have to, unless thay got it to spare. I wasn't comparing computers to cars. Jackass.
"Plus, old crap doesn't do anything worth while to people."
I'm confused. Are you trying to support your case or defeat it?
You need to do some serious learning kid. Take a wild guess what a lot of the space vehicles use for the computation systems. Here's a hint, who still buys some of the largest lots of 8086 processors? (NASA).
Or maybe things like the Keck telescope, the Aercibo satellite receiver, and the Empire state building should all be torn down and replaced. And let's not forget that old useless outdated invention, the wheel. Jackass.
"Could you use windows 3.11 to orginize your digital photo's? No USB jerk."
You don't need USB to offload digital photos. They do make usb to serial converters if you absoltuley wanted to use Windows 3.11. The Oakland repository still hosts a boatload of older software for digital editing, albeit it much less complex than todays. I wouldn't recommend using Windows 3.11, but it could be done.
This argument does not even support your case. A well cared for Ford truck from the 1980's hauls a load just as well as a Ford truck from the 1990's. Most of the commercial jets flying today were built in the 80's, if not earlier and they're still flying.
And again, you're still missing my point. Jackass.
"Could you use Windows 95 to edit your home movies? BZZZZT, no firewire, memory model leads to lots o lots o lots o crashes. Do you like redoing things? I hope so!"
Computers have been used for video editing for a long time. And yes, people did do they're home movies on W95. You don't need firewire to
Trick question. Mt Fuji moves everyday at rouighly 700 mph due to the rotation of the Earth. If you throw in Earth's orbital velocity, then it's more like 25000 mph.
"and show large, high quality photos on their site."
Speaking of reality checks, I think you need one. Google news is popular because even for people with low bandwidth it comes up quickly. You cover that page with hi quality images and you'll lose a good portion of your audience because it takes "forever" to load.
What Google displays are low-quality replicas of images. I highly doubt any reasonable judge would say they're breaking copyright.
For AFP, it will be a lose lose situation. If they win, Google will blacklist them and AFP will lose a major source of those precious button clicks. If they lose...well they lose.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, especially when it is the #1 MOST POPULAR SEARCH ENGINE ON THE PLANET.
You see, my fundamental problem with religions in general is that they are based on faith.
So eventually, every structured argument ends with "because God made it that way!". Now how constructive is that.
And why would a perfect supreme being make an imperfect universe? Just to see what would happen?
And why, in all the entirety of the universe, would any being care anything about this tiny speck of dust on the ass-end of a rather non-descript galaxy?
Because it wanted to? Is this the same being that proclaims hatred and eternal damnation for homosexuals?
Is this the same God that people are proclaiming made marriage as a sacrement between a man and a woman? (Which, btw, is total horseshit. Marriage has always been, until recently, a property contract). Is this the same God that kills indiscriminatly across the globe?
Or do we have another almost as powerful, almost as all knowing, all-evil being in the universe and we just happen to get stuck in the cross-fire?
Or, are we seriously misunderstanding what good and evil in the universe is?
Sorry. After reading and seeing the horrors of modern day religions, somehow I just can't bring myself to believe that the universe is made of magic.
Any god that preaches hatred or discrimination is not a god. Only humans (and other higher primates) know how to hate. A real supreme being would be far above such trivial nuances of the human psyche.
While I agree that C's golden age has come and gone, it shouldn't be relegated to the dust-bin of history yet.
There are many places where C is still used. There are many API's that are still in C. There's plenty of embedded systems programming that is done in C. So on and so forth. It has it's uses just like fortran has it's uses (and that's a rather ugly language IMHO).
A couple of years ago I was using C for embedded systems, due to the fact that the overhead incurred by C++ was just too large.
I still prefer C++ to the newer languages, along with the occasional assembler block for super critical performance code.
The newer languages certainly take a considerable amount of work out of the process (which I really like), but all those features come at a cost. And for those projects where the costs outweigh the benefits, "unsafe languages" will still be used.
I'd like one of the newer languages to have the power of assembly/C/C++ while still maintaining all their grace of memory saftey and management.
They're getting better, but they're not quite there yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Best damn story I've read yet.
Any bets on a dupe?
~X~
I think those programmers don't want to have to write reems of documentation. They just want to code.
:)
In that respect, those programmers aren't necessarily engineers. In the bridge analogy, they would be the construction workers. They don't necessarily want to write the plans for the bridge, they just want to build the damn thing.
Software engineers are more akin to the architects and designers. Sure, they want to build the bridge too but they like to lay it all out and have others handle the implementation.
I get the feeling that most programmers on here just want to be programmers. They don't want to deal with all the peer reviews and meetings, nor writing up designs etc. . They just want to code.
Programmers and software engineers are related and some people are both, but they are different.
I think that businesses don't make enough of a distinction between programmers and engineers. I believe this is one of the contributing factors to the problems we see today.
The way I see it, using the bridge analogy, businesses hire bunches of construction workers, but they don't have any (or understaffed) architects.
And I've noticed that even when an architect says that such and such a part cannot be done is X amount of time, they are overruled anyway.
The problem is two-fold. You have the workers, but no designer. And even if you have the designer, no one listens to him.
That's not a bridge I'd want to cross.
~X~
"Don't just accept the status quo."
I don't, and actively try to change that when I can. But talk about an uphill battle.
Once upper management gets something in their heads it takes an act of god to change their minds.
I think programmers are willing to shake things up, but it seems that the further up the chain you go the more they resist change.
~X~
No objections. In an ideal world, this would work all the time. But it doesn't.
The software industry is too competitive. You can process a rock solid product in time A and a cost B. But there 50 other ompanies out there that will say we can do it in A/2 and at a cost of B/4. It doesn't matter that you gave realistic estimates. Unless you have good raport with that customer, they will go for the one that says they can develope faster and cost less.
When deadlines loom, testing and QA get cut. Features can not be cut because the customer will not pay or take his business elsewhere next time. But testing and QA can be cut because there are no consequences (the whole "developer is not responsible for wrecking your data" clause).
Now, if software were more like th auto industry, where you ARE liable if an engine explodes, then you'd see a lot more stable products on the market with a lot fewer defects. That's when the math models and process will shine.
But in the world of new tech coming out every few months and people making ludicrous deadlines with insane amount of features, it's just not going work out that well.
Profit is the driving force, not quality.
It's sad.
~X~
Ah yes, the old formal software process.
So let's get back to the bridge builder. He knows his materials. He knows the geographical integrity of the area. He knows how much land he'll need. And he has a good idea how much weight the bridge will neeed to support.
Before the first whole is dug, he has a blueprint. This blue print went through several commitee's and reviews. All the data has been at least double checked. He knows all the dimensions, all the materials, and costs for that bridge.
Now why can't software engineering be like this?
The answer is simple. How many times has steel changed in the past 6 months, 12 months, or 18 months?
How many times has the format of blue prints changed in said time span?
In general, how often does the geological stabilty of an area change?
How often do things like concrete, nail-guns, etc. change in 18 months?
The problem with trying to apply a fixed solid process to software engineering is the fact that the whole thing changes so fast that by the time some standard is approved, it needs to be changed again.
And then, of course, the process only works when everyone follows it. This includes the customer. Good luck on that one.
Can you imagine how pissed a bridge builder would be if they were half way through and then the city comes by and says "we want all the bolts to be eight sided, and we won't pay you until it's done"?
This is the REAL WORLD of software developement. Sure, you can have internal procedures they may make life a little easier but that is of little help when you're management has to deal with an irate customer because he never reviewed the design.
SEI CMMI? Yep. Works like a charm doesn't it? There are plenty of companies who are CMMI 5 but this still happens.
And it will continue to happen until certain individuals realize that software is just as complex, if not more so than an engine. You don't slap one together and shove it in a car for consumers without giving it a solid saftey test. Software should be exactly the same.
But with all the software companies lobbying congress, I seriously doubt will have any sort of software "standards" in the near future.
~X~
Hmmmm...yes, those evil video games. Filled with all those vile polygons depicting sex and violence. Yeah...those evil video games....
Not like the that rape a genocide spree over in the Sudan. Not even close. Video games are much worse.
Or that war over in Iraq. Real life beheadings and car bombings flinging body parts and dead babies around is a sunday morning at the chapel compared to video games.
Or having preachers repeatedly tell your children that they burn in hell for all eternity for their sins. Or the sick media fascination with Schiavo case. Or the high school killing rampage in the mid-west. Or sex-abuse murder case down in Florida. Or the infanticide by Yates. Or the death and destruction of the tsunami or....
Games? The media spews forth all the putrescence of human filth every day across the internet, TV, and newspapers and HR Clinton thinks it's the games?
WTF? When are ignorant people going to learn that games are not the cause of the problem, we are. Games are escapism and fantasy, not reality. Games allow us to take on roles that we'd never play in real life. You can be gun toting killing machine or a raw adventurer trying to save the world. You can be a cold calculating murderer, or the detective trying to hunt him down. How is this harmful?
Maybe you want to be the bad guy. Maybe you want to be the good guy. These games allow people to do that. Safely.
Millions, let me emphasize that, MILLIONS of kids and adults play games every single day. It's not really surprising that out of that group that there are some wackos. I seriously doubt that the percentage is any higher than that of non-game players.
I think that the real problems affecting children have to do with reality. You have to admit our world is pretty messed up place, and alot of parents pour the reality-show, ratings-driven, lowest-common denominator trash right into their kids heads.
Children have little concept of the world. It is our jobs as PARENTS to be the EDUCATORS and the PROVIDERS. That's all the kids have. If you choose to let the media educate your children, you have to deal with the consequences.
It does no good to point fingers when you're standing in a room of mirrors.
~X~
From looking at the video and images, I have an observation.
If you look carefully at the sequence with regular atmospheric pressure, and the others you'll notice something about the droplets. The less air pressure, the more rounded they are.
When the distended drops hit the surface, the strike it differently than there round drop cousins. More drop hits the surface, and with a little bit of an angle. The spreading liquid on bottom hits the incoming liquid and spreads outward with the just enough angle so that it can catch a little air.
A low viscosities, a fluid has more ability to get "out-of-its-own-way". Lowering atmospheric pressure also removes another impediment to this. The higher the viscosity, the harder it is for the drop to spread without splashing and the more sesitive it is to leading edge distortins. The Distension in droplets of material are most likely related to the viscocity of fluid. It may even be proportional.
Just a hypothesis.
~X~
"...However, I am willing to do anything possible to end up as one of those parents."
;)
I think you need to use the preview button.
~X~
Along these lines, technological advancement will eventually give us the choice of whether or not we continue along the path of evolution naturally or do we augment it.
If there were genetic mutations that we could inject into ourselves that would be able to prevent cancer, cure disabilties, and enhance our lifespan is it really better to deny ourselves such things?
Once humans master DNA, the next step beyond that is to make us "better", to remove the defects that plague our genes, to increase our intelligence.
Is it not good for us to increase the quality of life for ourselves and humaniy?
Or is it better to let thousands suffer and die due to defects that will be cured "in due time" by nature?
~X~
At least we'll know those moans and screams aren't from pleasure.
~X~
"LOL. I doubt any part of Nevada is "10,000 times the normal radiation level" now, and certainly none of it would be hundreds of millions of years from now when some hypothetical intelligent species evolves. Thanks for the laugh though. "
.01 degree increase per year, that's still an enormous amount of heat energy.
I think he was referring to the Yucca mountain storage facility for nuclear waste.
As fas a global warming is concerned, it's pretty simple really.
FACT: Humans are pumping billions of tons of methane, CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.
FACT: These are proven green-house gases.
FACT: Billions of tons of greenhouse gases + solar radiation = warmer temperatures.
The effects are cumulative. Even if our output was causing a
I think the argument of "how much our we affecting our environment" is ludicrous. The fact that we ARE affecting global temperatures at all should give us pause.
And the fact that we can't reverse what we've done should really make us think.
~X~
99.9% of what you call experts were members of the clergy. It was in their best interest to keep the populace ignorant so they could maintain their religious empire.
Science was not a very big calling during the dark and middle ages.
As far as global warming is concerned, by the time you see what you would call "proof", it would already be too late.
As it is, many are already saying it's to late and the best we can do is prepare.
~X~
What scientists?
It was the Catholic church that intimidated Galileo. There were very few of what we could call scientists around back then.
~X~
"But does the average desk jockey need a 3GHz processor."
"Why would anyone need more than 640K?"
There seems to be a popular misconception on slashdot the averag Joe Beermaster doesn't use the computer for anything more than some email, word processing, a surfing.
It's been my experience that people are beginning to catch up with the technology. There are those of us who are ahead of the curve (nerds like us), those in the middle of the curve (mostly the up and coming generation and anyone who's around computers enough), and people below the curve (the horror stories of tech support).
I see a lot more people using digital cameras and digital video cameras and processing them on their PC's. I see a lot of people playing intense 3D games. I see a lot of people doing audio processing.
This takes up lots of space and lots of processing power.
I disagree with both you and Carr. As time goes along, people are becoming less afraid and more confident in their computer use. With confidence comes more exploration and more discovery. The curve moves forward.
Once people learn the potential of what computers are capable of, we'll probably see another surge of higher end computer buying/using.
I view the current situation as one that has happened many times in the past. Society and people change more slowly than technology, but they'll eventually catch up.
~X~
I have a feeling this may be used as a stepping stone for a proof of the Goldbach conjecture (string binary form).
~X~
"Are you honestly this stupid?"
No, but apparently you are. You're posts are still being ratd at one. The quality is that of an arrogant 6th grader. And apparrntly, you still haven't yet grasped the point of my original post.
"USB to serial converter. Do you actually believe this turns a serial port into a USB port?"
Now you're being a jackass again. Instead of saying something reasonable like, "Oh...my bad. I misinterpreted what you had orignally posted." you go on to make yourself into a bigger ass.
No. A usb to serial converter does not turn a serial port into a USB port. Nor could this ever be possible as USB and Serial use totally different hardware, clockgens, ioports, and transfer speeds. A USB to serial converter merely translates the incoming data stream to standard serial pinouts. The max serial output is 115Kbps, so it is also slower.
But if you had an iota of intelligence, you might have realized something.
UNIVERSAL SERIAL BUS. Now think really hard and try to figure out what USB was based on. That's right, the "old and useless" serial architeture.
That is, the same serial architecture that is used for diagnostic ports on various robotics and machinery. And the very same architecture that can be found in a lot of modern day cars that are used to run engine diagnostics. This is also the same architecture that is used for a lot of modern day commercial "GOTO" telescopes.
Yeah that old useless serial bus. Just like that old interstate freeway system. Completely useless.
Just like your inane, offtopic, pressumptuous assinine posts.
~X~
Welcome to America, where the One True God hates homosexuals and likes killing brown people.
~X~
You're as ignorant as you are arrogant. Firstly, my post was made mostly as a joke. Since you seem to take such an offense to it, perhaps you have some personal issues to work through.
But I'm feeling a bit confrontational, so here's a reply to your asshat type response.
"However, believe it or not, cars don't get twice as fast every 18 months!"
Neither do computers, or have you not be paying attention to benchmarks? The number of transistors double roughly every 18 months. The clock speed doesn't necessarily go along with this. Take the AMD 64 for example. The 3400+ model runs along at 2.2 GHz. Has that doubled from 18 months ago?
Your relationship between car speed and cpu speed is a false analogy. Their systems, and the laws of physics that they abide by, work under completely different circumstances.
"So it seems that your analogy falls afucking part there."
Not really genious. My point was that most average Joe's don't have the money to blow on the latest and greatest toys. If something they have works and it does what they need, there is little reason for them to upgrade. This goes for couches, cars, or computers.
Take, for example, EPA regulations regarding car pollution. Do people buy a new $40000 car to meet the regulations? Or do they buy the $1000 catalytic converter upgrade for their 1993 Honda? Jackass.
"besides, this analogy was fucking stupid from the start"
Sort of like you're pointless use of obscenities. Jackass.
"Cars do one primary thing, get you somewhere."
Do you live in a cave? If you hadn't noticed, a lot of people consider their car to be much more that a transportation device. That's why we have shows like "Pimp My Ride" and the like. Jackass.
"Once you're there it really doesn't matter what car you have."
There are a lot of people who would beg to differ with you on this one. Jackass.
"However, computers are *general* computing machines. They can be programmed to do more than one function. So you can type up a document just like they did 40 years ago, AND you can render your home video like they didn't 4 years ago, and you will be able to do whatever you can program a turing complete machine to do."
And this relates to...what exactly? The point was people don't spend money if they don't have to, unless thay got it to spare. I wasn't comparing computers to cars. Jackass.
"Plus, old crap doesn't do anything worth while to people."
I'm confused. Are you trying to support your case or defeat it?
You need to do some serious learning kid. Take a wild guess what a lot of the space vehicles use for the computation systems. Here's a hint, who still buys some of the largest lots of 8086 processors? (NASA).
Or maybe things like the Keck telescope, the Aercibo satellite receiver, and the Empire state building should all be torn down and replaced. And let's not forget that old useless outdated invention, the wheel. Jackass.
"Could you use windows 3.11 to orginize your digital photo's? No USB jerk."
You don't need USB to offload digital photos. They do make usb to serial converters if you absoltuley wanted to use Windows 3.11. The Oakland repository still hosts a boatload of older software for digital editing, albeit it much less complex than todays. I wouldn't recommend using Windows 3.11, but it could be done.
This argument does not even support your case. A well cared for Ford truck from the 1980's hauls a load just as well as a Ford truck from the 1990's. Most of the commercial jets flying today were built in the 80's, if not earlier and they're still flying.
And again, you're still missing my point. Jackass.
"Could you use Windows 95 to edit your home movies? BZZZZT, no firewire, memory model leads to lots o lots o lots o crashes. Do you like redoing things? I hope so!"
Computers have been used for video editing for a long time. And yes, people did do they're home movies on W95. You don't need firewire to
"How would you move mount fuji?"
Trick question. Mt Fuji moves everyday at rouighly 700 mph due to the rotation of the Earth. If you throw in Earth's orbital velocity, then it's more like 25000 mph.
~X~
"and show large, high quality photos on their site."
Speaking of reality checks, I think you need one. Google news is popular because even for people with low bandwidth it comes up quickly. You cover that page with hi quality images and you'll lose a good portion of your audience because it takes "forever" to load.
What Google displays are low-quality replicas of images. I highly doubt any reasonable judge would say they're breaking copyright.
For AFP, it will be a lose lose situation. If they win, Google will blacklist them and AFP will lose a major source of those precious button clicks. If they lose...well they lose.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, especially when it is the #1 MOST POPULAR SEARCH ENGINE ON THE PLANET.
~X~
In other news, 50% of all cars on the road are 8 years old or older.
This may seem amazing to some slashpeople, but not everyone can afford a computer upgrade and a new OS every couple of years.
If what they have works, why bother spending the money? After all, there are other useful endeavors the money can be spent on.
Like beer.
~X~
You see, my fundamental problem with religions in general is that they are based on faith.
So eventually, every structured argument ends with "because God made it that way!". Now how constructive is that.
And why would a perfect supreme being make an imperfect universe? Just to see what would happen?
And why, in all the entirety of the universe, would any being care anything about this tiny speck of dust on the ass-end of a rather non-descript galaxy?
Because it wanted to? Is this the same being that proclaims hatred and eternal damnation for homosexuals?
Is this the same God that people are proclaiming made marriage as a sacrement between a man and a woman? (Which, btw, is total horseshit. Marriage has always been, until recently, a property contract). Is this the same God that kills indiscriminatly across the globe?
Or do we have another almost as powerful, almost as all knowing, all-evil being in the universe and we just happen to get stuck in the cross-fire?
Or, are we seriously misunderstanding what good and evil in the universe is?
Sorry. After reading and seeing the horrors of modern day religions, somehow I just can't bring myself to believe that the universe is made of magic.
Any god that preaches hatred or discrimination is not a god. Only humans (and other higher primates) know how to hate. A real supreme being would be far above such trivial nuances of the human psyche.
~X~
I propose quantum mice. They only have the button you want when you observe it.
~X~
I don't really have a lot to add to that. :)
But, like you, when given the choice between C and C++ I always choose C++.
~X~
While I agree that C's golden age has come and gone, it shouldn't be relegated to the dust-bin of history yet.
There are many places where C is still used. There are many API's that are still in C. There's plenty of embedded systems programming that is done in C. So on and so forth. It has it's uses just like fortran has it's uses (and that's a rather ugly language IMHO).
A couple of years ago I was using C for embedded systems, due to the fact that the overhead incurred by C++ was just too large.
I still prefer C++ to the newer languages, along with the occasional assembler block for super critical performance code.
The newer languages certainly take a considerable amount of work out of the process (which I really like), but all those features come at a cost. And for those projects where the costs outweigh the benefits, "unsafe languages" will still be used.
I'd like one of the newer languages to have the power of assembly/C/C++ while still maintaining all their grace of memory saftey and management.
They're getting better, but they're not quite there yet.
~X~