haven't there been entire 200 comment discussions about who first came up wtih tabbed browsing? I'm sure, in the end, we will all find out it was actually Al Gore
I'm sorry oh great developer. Of course, I admit, I call both accelerators and key-binds short cuts. but I expected that when I referenced short cuts as "alt +" that it would be obvious what I was talking about. For a developer, I'm surprised it took you 2 posts to understand that. I would still bet dollars you dimes even with your 20 years of developing you don't have a chance in hell at beating me at speed. But that's not the issue.
Needing to change options to get the computer to show you short cuts is hiding those short cuts away. Of course, again, your reading comprehension is in question. Because if you can't see it, it is being hidden away. I never once said they were impossible to show, but then again, you don't take much time to understand what is being written. It's ok, I can file all these away under you being impatient or an ardent defender of the Mac. Neither require you to be an idiot.
Of course, you seem to love to call someone it just because a mac is completely unsuited to their work (which, of course, I made clear in the original post). again, get a mac to be equally fast and you are in good shape.
Of course, a quick search on my mac for accelerator keys and shortcuts brings up: 1) no results 2) how to right click
The first implies that even your jargon is far from universal, so don't berate someone for not knowing what isn't in that beloved Mac OSX help. The second implies that your help search isn't exactly the greatest or most relavant. Some of us work for a living rather than claim to be developers and don't care to waste time with poorly put together help menus.
even better though, that great method for accessing the menus is completely half assed. the first letter does not always access an option (the "apple" menu has 4 options that start with the letter s, but S will only access two of them), and there aren't any underlined letters to cue me to them. Now, I'm sure you will google a quick way to highlight these letters, but then again, you obviously have a lot more time to waste so I'll actually wait for you to tell me in your next reply. far more efficient. By the way, try out firefox. The commands inside the menu's do not have any underlined letters(the menus themselves do) so again, you are wrong about the lack of an underlying implying to accelerator. Just getting you brushed up so you don't go saying that again. Its just false.
Either way, my post was still an opinion about a poor experience with OS X. I still find it slow and laggy even on a new computer. But that could be for a myriad of reasons that I'm sure you would never credit to the OS. Yes, and I'll say XP is pretty damn bad as well about being laggy, but then again, I can easily reduce all those useful features (the bubbliness is not needed) and get the speed back.
I don't even need to respond to the rest of your post. Even after realizing I wasn't talking about those accelerator keys, you continue to harp on short cuts. Of course, then you say that my rant was mis informed, I hope I've shown you a couple of your own glaring mistakes. 20 years of developing really didn't stand up to well to 10 seconds of scrutiny. by the way, they are the go and bookmarks menus in Firefox.
I guess you never used any alt+ "letters" commands in windows? For all your calling me an idiot, you missed the major point. Yes, I know how to get to the shortcuts in Apple. And then what? Memorize 200 to get myself up to speed? that would be idiotic. As every program does shortcuts slightly differently, I would be SOL with the productivity side until I learned all the new shortcuts. (btw,
But try this. Open up a windows program. Hit the alt key, now hit F. I will bet you just brought up the file menu. now you can choose the option you want with the arrow keys or a first letter(which is generally underlined). This is far easier to remember than a series of predetermined key binds. All I have to do is look and I can find the shortcut letter.
But of course, you decide to refer to key binds which were not the series of short cuts I was referencing. But good try. Since it was in the first paragraph, I'll put your attention span at about 2 sentences(ignoring those things that are in brackets).
of course, my work comment was:
But I would never recommend a mac for my office. its at the bottom of my totem pole. But that is very user specific. I don't think there is a single person in my line of business that would ever want to use a mac for work.
so you can read that again and quit shitting a brick that there could be entire industries that would only find a Mac an expensive nuisance. Its called Corporate and Investment Banking. and there isn't a single person in there that owns a mac for any work purpose. Granted, you probably can't get off your high horse to realize that I said "But that is very user specific". Namely, I said openly my distaste of the mac has everything to do with how I use a computer.
I saved the least important point for last. By idiot friendly, I by no means am I implying OS X is easy to learn. I am implying that the OS was built around a user that isn't worried about speed or efficiency and therefore, is entranced by a pretty GUI.
Try reading the original post again. And this time before jumping the gun and calling someone an idiot for finding a mac completely unsuited to his work, you might actually see it as an opinion. But I'll leave that up to you.
so when does the territory become Israel's? How many times do they have to fight off agression from the middle east and just keep letting them near their borders? even beyond that, why is it you seem to think the palestinians didn't have a choice. Many of those tax paying, unrepresented palestinians(well, now their parents) were given the option of full citizenship in Israel proper in 1948 and almost all turned it down. You reap what you sow. The Palestinians gambled that the Arab coutries would destroy Israel and take that land (notice I didnt' say take back the land, as they have no claim to it under international law).
I don't feel sorry for a gambler who loses everything in a casino. I see no reason to shed these tears on Palestinians that were gambling on something much worse happening when they had the option of full inclusion into the Israeli state.
Now what losses are you talking about again? Next time you play poker, give the loser back his money(or better yet, ask for yours), I bet someone will get a laugh out of it.
oh, but you forget. America its the biggest so we should give up all personal fun and give everything we have to the poor people around the world./sarcasm
My outlook is this: I will only listen seriously to someone who actually does it. The poster doesn't even stand a shot at naming a single country that gives everything it could to the poor countries around the world. But it is really fun to pick on someone(anyone) else than admit you are just as guilty.
1. Prove it. Lenin and Stalin during there time killed more of their own people than any direct action of hte US can be linked to. Hitler put to death 6 million Jews and started a war that killed quite a few more. Now lets try to actually use something that is factual.
4. No person can be saved by AIDS drugs!!! AIDS is a terminal illness. If you have it, it will kill you. So what you are saying is the US has decided to not prolong the life of terminally ill patients in the name of placating an industry. I'm not saying its better or worse, just the truth.
8. Name one genocidal event that Israel took part in in the last 16 years. I knwo you will just call me ignorant of what is right in front of everyone elses face, but all I see is a group of Palestinians that keep being given things by Israel and then continue to purposefully pick a fight. So give me something. Some proof of a general attempt to exterminate the Palestinians.
What I find far more incredible that no one says "Hey, look at Israel economically helping a group of people that continue to launch attacks on its civilians. They collect taxes for the government and have even transferred money to it. I wonder why they would do that?" You might want to ponder that before you go and claim genocide.
Now previous to 16 years ago, you can claim a great deal of bad things were done by Israel. But the funny thing is, they were always precipitated by far worse from the Palestinians. So at worst you can say they responded in a measured manner.
I would macs are far inferior to windows when it comes to shortcuts(especially in teh applications arena). Granted, my job has me use about 5 different programs (Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Bloomberg, and a couple of other in house systems) but after getting used to the raw speed I can work at in windows based apps (alt + an easy to learn series of letters can do anything in office, which is what I love) I can't stand macs. and the funny thing is, for all the quick mac users I have met(one was one of the people who started at Apple during its beginnings and all his family), none can even do 1/4 my speed.
I bought a mac for the portability(I think they are the best laptops around) but I'd never burn money on it for the OS. It is the height of idiot friendly and no where near fast enough. I can't work an anywhere near the speed I would like to. There isn't even an easy to learn set of shortcuts. its all hidden. Worse yet, the 30 or 40 or so shortcuts I know I had to have people tell me.
I could never use my mac without a mouse. I'm bound to it for basic functionality. I hardly touch my mouse at work or at home except when playing fps. I find the mac gui extrordinary deficient.
a good example was when I just installed windows. I had some motherboard issues(I built the computer and had to load a bootleg copy so I could load my legit copy) and it wouldn't recognize my mouse. I got through the basic install and complete setup without a mouse. After getting it online and getting a legit copy working, I connected the mouse. but still, I hardly use it.
Linux is better from a "I'm a computer developer" point of view from everything I've experienced. But I would never recommend a mac for my office. its at the bottom of my totem pole. But that is very user specific. I don't think there is a single person in my line of business that would ever want to use a mac for work.
hopefully, new versions of windows won't be as bad as everyone is saying. if they are as idiot proof as I hear, I don't think I will ever upgrade. macs are great because they are some of the best made computers around. but I think my biggest problem is the damn OS. apple makes great computers as a hardware company adn finally they are pricing things competitively. but the OS hasn't at all lived up to any hype(or basic expectations).
the difference is like saying: "hey, I can do itnegration by hand. I can even do integrals using some very incredible estimation method. that means all the patents on computer software of doing integrals are invalid"
or even more similar: "there are loads of textbooks taht compile answers to indefinite integrals. that means if mathematica does this on a computer, it is merely replicating what I could find in a book and therefore, non-patentable"
I'm not saying its the most ground breaking technology ever, but similar things we live with without a complaint every day.
while the math is valid, I"m not sure how someone on a 30 k a year salary can put away 18 every year. Even if they get off easy and only pay 20% to taxes, that leaves disposable inc at 24 K. Now if this person is happy spending the next 40 years living how I did in college, even 18 K left at the end of the year isn't possible. I got away with 400 a month for basic expenses and that included not using AC in the summer and almost no heat in the winter(even when it was 30 degrees outside). Food ran me another 300 a month. So right there I burnt through about 8400 dollars. And this didn't include gas, or buying a car, or buying new clothes(required to keep that job), and all the other costs of living. I would bet someone on a 30 K a year job could really stretch and get to 10,000 a year saved.
Since our hypothetical person can just fit in the calculator, he would have 20 million at the end of 40 years of living in pretty terrible conditions. Just my opinion, but probably not the best way to go about getting to that space walk. I gave the person an average of 15% returns per year. I am not sure where you got your 21% returns on Berkshire Hathaway but looking at historical prices on yahoo, in the beginning of 1990 the stock was trading at 8200 and just closed at 90200. This implies a 15.5% annualized return. I don't know about stock performance before that, but there is a great deal of research to suggest that since the 70's, risk premiums have been steadily falling in the market place(to about 1/2 of what they once were).
My point is just that I dont' think it is possible to do if all you are satisfied with is a 30K a year job.
there are other jobs that are much quicker at getting to the money. If you have the skills, you can become a trader(like Wall Street) or some other type of banker. If you are willing to work really hard, you can start earning 120K a year at 22. If you are really willing to work hard and get into trading, that can quickly become 750K - 1 million a year by the time you are 26.
But, its not a job many would want to take. The hours are unappealing for most people. But if you really want it, you can drive towards that end. There is a lot of money to be made.
you're off. the nsa taps were not aimed at known terrorist phone numbers. They were aimed at phones that made frequent calls to countries with known terrorist ties(namely, anywhere in the middle east). The data as to who was being called and where the calls were coming from was being used in order to narrow down possible terrorists. If they were known terrorist phone numbers, the wiretaps could begin immediately and concurrently, the administration could request clearance through FISA and the special court set up to hear these things. The interesting thing is, all the government needs to do is give a very limited reason as to why the taps are needed.
If they knew the phone numbers belonged to terrorists, it wouldn't be a problem to get a warrant for a wire tap. So to say the warrantless wiretaps were required for security is only meaningful if the government was partaking in broad based surveilance of anyone who made any contact with person's from the middle east.
In defense of Enron, before the debacle of the late 90's, they were a rock solid company. They pioneered new strategies in the energy market. I think Ken Lay was really a genius. similarly, I've heard Hitler might be the greatest orator of the last century. Being good at something != being moral.
Granted, I've never heard much about the genius of the management team at the other companies. But I do step to the defense of Enron when it was a legitimate business. And oddly enough, Ken Lay supposedly had a lot to do with Enron's strategic direction back then.
not to bash jobs, I think he is great, but he gets compensated better htan most CEO's out there. Massive stock grants, multi million dollar planes, and loads of other "gifts" from the board to show their appreciation. I'm sure if the board completely stopped doing this as well, Jobs might reconsider accepting 1$ in contractual pay.
and let me clarify, it doesn't require greed to want to get compensated for your money, time, and the value you add. He led apple through an amazing turn around and was at the helm during 4 major occurances: the Ipod, switch to Unix OS, Intel Chips, and streamlining of computer production. But I'd bet he feels he has well earned those gifts just as much as he would probably ask for a very hefty salary for his incredible performance.
you buy anything from China or made in any third world country? I know the answer is yes so quit complaining when someone does not believe in a minimum wage. YOu believe in a much worse type of minimum wage by the way you choose to spend money than anyone believing in not having a minimum wage(which does not imply wage slavery. even before the minimum wage labor collaborated to prevent wage slavery).
Lots would rather see higher employment and hten supplement that income because there are big psychological factors with having a job rather than living only on handouts.
My point about the airlines is that sometimes, it is better for the consumer when deregulation occurs. But it only happens when it occurs in the correct markets. Some markets are not set up for deregulation becuase with regulation came incredibly strong monopolies.
why does it have to be completely one way or the other? maybe in this case, deregulation will allow already in place monopolies to completely rape the market. it might not with the right regulations left in place.
there are a lot of people that don't believe in the minimum wage. I'm not one, but it is a valid viewpoint.
btw, you are wrong if you really believe less regulation leads to fewer choices all the time. Read about the deregulation of the airline industry. air travel was deregulated at the right time such that that all the major airlines that were originally protected are now in bankruptcy. I'm not trying to say it always works, but it can under the right conditions.
but they are still holding to that cycle of yours. We have observed that our word is seemingly governed by a linear set of equations(q. mech) and a non linear set up equations(gen rel). We have also seen that we can effectively merge two of the linear models(weak and EM force) and get a very robust set of equations that made a prediction that was shown to be true. Further, the strong force is described using the same framework as the electroweak force.
Now what I said above is pretty much accurate towards every physics textbook and guage theory book I have started(never made it all the way through a guage theory book). Now we have observed that three of the four forces we have ever observed seem to be described by one force(possible, not proven that the strong force can also be drawn into that mix). furthermore, those theories were developed when people decided to use the geometric interpretation of einstein for a force. So maybe we have attacked these four forces from the wrong direction. maybe they can all be unified and that will give us a new prediction(like electro-weak theory did, the top quark).
Now physicists are working on step 2. String theory is, I believe, prematurely called a theory. Lots of people are still trying to work out the math to get something equivalent to Schrodinger's equation so they can step forward. Then they can make an experimental prediction. Few string theorists have the audacity to state taht it is some final theory or is definitely correct. But this is how you do it. It took newton many years to describe his physics because he had to create calculus. Well, they are doing the same thing now. some cycles just aren't as fast as you seem to want. I don't mean this as an insult, just as a different view point.
that is odd that he had such a problem with not getting general anesthetic. when I had mine pulled, I Had to have general anesthetic because they were going to cut them out of the jaw bone and not let them get severely impacted(they were sitting partially under my 12 year molars already). But everyone else in my family that had the procedure done just used local and was awake during the procedure.
sometimes, it just helps to request general if you are squeamish about what they are doing. I mean, those are your strongest teeth and therefore, the most difficult to pull. I'm just saying, don't always blame the doctor. A lot of amputations are done without using general anesthetic and this is for the patient's safety. I'm sure it can leave a severe mental scar though.
you're right. I think I'm going to start buying only american made cloth to put those poor people in NC back into business and run those chinese clothing manufacturers out of business. I mean, those poor people were never able to find jobs in this static american economy that is incapable of making new jobs when the old ones get moved to the developing countries.
You're just nicely ignoring the new jobs that can be created and are created.
(the qualified/smart foreign workers were smart enough to get hired by US companies and move here on H1B, the not so smart are what we pay when we outsource).
complete BS, but in your limited view go on adn believe it. Lots of people have left US after recieving an H1B because they can go to Infosys and work in the outsourcing projects, making half as much money but living in a much nicer home with a couple servants and a nice car. Especially in India, money goes much much further.
oh, how do I know? because already several members in my family have done just that.
of course, the BofA system is nice to thwart you. If you are believed to have done a sub par job, they pull your severance pay(it was in the article).
there is a difference. what we have today is the internet version of wal mart paying for band width. They have to pay the big telcos loads of money so that they can be online and have massive upload and download streams available. so do we customers.
now they want to get rid of neutrality. that means if there is congestion, you can pay more and move your traffic to the front of the line. that means during rush hour, wal mart could pay more so that I had the ability to take some special lane that went to wal mart and was only for wal mart customers.
Of course, this means that they are paying twice. once to get bandwidth, adn then again to make sure the bandwidth they already paid for is available. the real problem is telco's would like to be able to sell bandwidth that doesn't exist just so they can then turn around and demand more money to give your traffic priority.
Now have you ever seen a wal mart only lane in any town? that is how the proposals about network neutrality are different.
I think its funny two of your three favorites would probably still be on the nintendo only if it weren't for Nintendo's arrogance back when sony got into the console business......
funny how a misstep like that can give up your stranglehold in the market.
much, but I didn't know they could get the working material up to 1800 K ever. I've only heard of numbers in the 800 to 900 range. Anyways, carnot is not a good engine to compare to because it takes infinite time to do a carnot cycle. its probably the stirling engine would give better numbers though i don't remmeber its efficiency formula. I think its along the lines of 1-sqrt[(tc/th)]
you're way off base with your heat engine. there is no law that requires efficiency to be less than 50%. only that efficiency of any heat engine can never be 100%.
the theoretical limit is 1- (Tc/Th) where Tc is the temperature of your exhaust(cold resevoir) and Th is the temeprature of your hot resevoir(basically, how hot you get the material)
If your cold resevoir is at absolute 0, you can have 100% efficency(impossible) but let's look at other options:
a gas engine , given some compression ratio, has a max efficiency of: 1-s^(f-1) where s: inverse of the compression ratio f: f is approximately 7/5 for air
so if you can get your compression ratio extremely high, you can be efficient.
btw, its probably a bad idea to make up physics on slashdot.
all these numbers are from : Thermal Physics by Schroeder
Slashdot Mirror
haven't there been entire 200 comment discussions about who first came up wtih tabbed browsing? I'm sure, in the end, we will all find out it was actually Al Gore
I'm sorry oh great developer. Of course, I admit, I call both accelerators and key-binds short cuts. but I expected that when I referenced short cuts as "alt +" that it would be obvious what I was talking about. For a developer, I'm surprised it took you 2 posts to understand that. I would still bet dollars you dimes even with your 20 years of developing you don't have a chance in hell at beating me at speed. But that's not the issue.
Needing to change options to get the computer to show you short cuts is hiding those short cuts away. Of course, again, your reading comprehension is in question. Because if you can't see it, it is being hidden away. I never once said they were impossible to show, but then again, you don't take much time to understand what is being written. It's ok, I can file all these away under you being impatient or an ardent defender of the Mac. Neither require you to be an idiot.
Of course, you seem to love to call someone it just because a mac is completely unsuited to their work (which, of course, I made clear in the original post). again, get a mac to be equally fast and you are in good shape.
Of course, a quick search on my mac for accelerator keys and shortcuts brings up:
1) no results
2) how to right click
The first implies that even your jargon is far from universal, so don't berate someone for not knowing what isn't in that beloved Mac OSX help. The second implies that your help search isn't exactly the greatest or most relavant. Some of us work for a living rather than claim to be developers and don't care to waste time with poorly put together help menus.
even better though, that great method for accessing the menus is completely half assed. the first letter does not always access an option (the "apple" menu has 4 options that start with the letter s, but S will only access two of them), and there aren't any underlined letters to cue me to them. Now, I'm sure you will google a quick way to highlight these letters, but then again, you obviously have a lot more time to waste so I'll actually wait for you to tell me in your next reply. far more efficient. By the way, try out firefox. The commands inside the menu's do not have any underlined letters(the menus themselves do) so again, you are wrong about the lack of an underlying implying to accelerator. Just getting you brushed up so you don't go saying that again. Its just false.
Either way, my post was still an opinion about a poor experience with OS X. I still find it slow and laggy even on a new computer. But that could be for a myriad of reasons that I'm sure you would never credit to the OS. Yes, and I'll say XP is pretty damn bad as well about being laggy, but then again, I can easily reduce all those useful features (the bubbliness is not needed) and get the speed back.
I don't even need to respond to the rest of your post. Even after realizing I wasn't talking about those accelerator keys, you continue to harp on short cuts. Of course, then you say that my rant was mis informed, I hope I've shown you a couple of your own glaring mistakes. 20 years of developing really didn't stand up to well to 10 seconds of scrutiny. by the way, they are the go and bookmarks menus in Firefox.
I guess you never used any alt+ "letters" commands in windows? For all your calling me an idiot, you missed the major point. Yes, I know how to get to the shortcuts in Apple. And then what? Memorize 200 to get myself up to speed? that would be idiotic. As every program does shortcuts slightly differently, I would be SOL with the productivity side until I learned all the new shortcuts. (btw,
But try this. Open up a windows program. Hit the alt key, now hit F. I will bet you just brought up the file menu. now you can choose the option you want with the arrow keys or a first letter(which is generally underlined). This is far easier to remember than a series of predetermined key binds. All I have to do is look and I can find the shortcut letter.
But of course, you decide to refer to key binds which were not the series of short cuts I was referencing. But good try. Since it was in the first paragraph, I'll put your attention span at about 2 sentences(ignoring those things that are in brackets).
of course, my work comment was:
But I would never recommend a mac for my office. its at the bottom of my totem pole. But that is very user specific. I don't think there is a single person in my line of business that would ever want to use a mac for work.
so you can read that again and quit shitting a brick that there could be entire industries that would only find a Mac an expensive nuisance. Its called Corporate and Investment Banking. and there isn't a single person in there that owns a mac for any work purpose. Granted, you probably can't get off your high horse to realize that I said "But that is very user specific". Namely, I said openly my distaste of the mac has everything to do with how I use a computer.
I saved the least important point for last. By idiot friendly, I by no means am I implying OS X is easy to learn. I am implying that the OS was built around a user that isn't worried about speed or efficiency and therefore, is entranced by a pretty GUI.
Try reading the original post again. And this time before jumping the gun and calling someone an idiot for finding a mac completely unsuited to his work, you might actually see it as an opinion. But I'll leave that up to you.
so when does the territory become Israel's? How many times do they have to fight off agression from the middle east and just keep letting them near their borders? even beyond that, why is it you seem to think the palestinians didn't have a choice. Many of those tax paying, unrepresented palestinians(well, now their parents) were given the option of full citizenship in Israel proper in 1948 and almost all turned it down. You reap what you sow. The Palestinians gambled that the Arab coutries would destroy Israel and take that land (notice I didnt' say take back the land, as they have no claim to it under international law).
I don't feel sorry for a gambler who loses everything in a casino. I see no reason to shed these tears on Palestinians that were gambling on something much worse happening when they had the option of full inclusion into the Israeli state.
Now what losses are you talking about again? Next time you play poker, give the loser back his money(or better yet, ask for yours), I bet someone will get a laugh out of it.
oh, but you forget. America its the biggest so we should give up all personal fun and give everything we have to the poor people around the world. /sarcasm
My outlook is this: I will only listen seriously to someone who actually does it. The poster doesn't even stand a shot at naming a single country that gives everything it could to the poor countries around the world. But it is really fun to pick on someone(anyone) else than admit you are just as guilty.
just a few corrections:
1. Prove it. Lenin and Stalin during there time killed more of their own people than any direct action of hte US can be linked to. Hitler put to death 6 million Jews and started a war that killed quite a few more. Now lets try to actually use something that is factual.
4. No person can be saved by AIDS drugs!!! AIDS is a terminal illness. If you have it, it will kill you. So what you are saying is the US has decided to not prolong the life of terminally ill patients in the name of placating an industry. I'm not saying its better or worse, just the truth.
8. Name one genocidal event that Israel took part in in the last 16 years. I knwo you will just call me ignorant of what is right in front of everyone elses face, but all I see is a group of Palestinians that keep being given things by Israel and then continue to purposefully pick a fight. So give me something. Some proof of a general attempt to exterminate the Palestinians.
What I find far more incredible that no one says "Hey, look at Israel economically helping a group of people that continue to launch attacks on its civilians. They collect taxes for the government and have even transferred money to it. I wonder why they would do that?" You might want to ponder that before you go and claim genocide.
Now previous to 16 years ago, you can claim a great deal of bad things were done by Israel. But the funny thing is, they were always precipitated by far worse from the Palestinians. So at worst you can say they responded in a measured manner.
I would macs are far inferior to windows when it comes to shortcuts(especially in teh applications arena). Granted, my job has me use about 5 different programs (Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Bloomberg, and a couple of other in house systems) but after getting used to the raw speed I can work at in windows based apps (alt + an easy to learn series of letters can do anything in office, which is what I love) I can't stand macs. and the funny thing is, for all the quick mac users I have met(one was one of the people who started at Apple during its beginnings and all his family), none can even do 1/4 my speed.
I bought a mac for the portability(I think they are the best laptops around) but I'd never burn money on it for the OS. It is the height of idiot friendly and no where near fast enough. I can't work an anywhere near the speed I would like to. There isn't even an easy to learn set of shortcuts. its all hidden. Worse yet, the 30 or 40 or so shortcuts I know I had to have people tell me.
I could never use my mac without a mouse. I'm bound to it for basic functionality. I hardly touch my mouse at work or at home except when playing fps. I find the mac gui extrordinary deficient.
a good example was when I just installed windows. I had some motherboard issues(I built the computer and had to load a bootleg copy so I could load my legit copy) and it wouldn't recognize my mouse. I got through the basic install and complete setup without a mouse. After getting it online and getting a legit copy working, I connected the mouse. but still, I hardly use it.
Linux is better from a "I'm a computer developer" point of view from everything I've experienced. But I would never recommend a mac for my office. its at the bottom of my totem pole. But that is very user specific. I don't think there is a single person in my line of business that would ever want to use a mac for work.
hopefully, new versions of windows won't be as bad as everyone is saying. if they are as idiot proof as I hear, I don't think I will ever upgrade. macs are great because they are some of the best made computers around. but I think my biggest problem is the damn OS. apple makes great computers as a hardware company adn finally they are pricing things competitively. but the OS hasn't at all lived up to any hype(or basic expectations).
oh well, that is my feeling for the OS.
the difference is like saying:
"hey, I can do itnegration by hand. I can even do integrals using some very incredible estimation method. that means all the patents on computer software of doing integrals are invalid"
or even more similar:
"there are loads of textbooks taht compile answers to indefinite integrals. that means if mathematica does this on a computer, it is merely replicating what I could find in a book and therefore, non-patentable"
I'm not saying its the most ground breaking technology ever, but similar things we live with without a complaint every day.
rule of thumb?!
Did you do in the late 19th century it was legal for husbands to beat their wives as long as they used a stick no wider than their thumb!
"Can't do much damage with that now can we? Maybe it should have been a rule of wrist"
while the math is valid, I"m not sure how someone on a 30 k a year salary can put away 18 every year. Even if they get off easy and only pay 20% to taxes, that leaves disposable inc at 24 K. Now if this person is happy spending the next 40 years living how I did in college, even 18 K left at the end of the year isn't possible. I got away with 400 a month for basic expenses and that included not using AC in the summer and almost no heat in the winter(even when it was 30 degrees outside). Food ran me another 300 a month. So right there I burnt through about 8400 dollars. And this didn't include gas, or buying a car, or buying new clothes(required to keep that job), and all the other costs of living. I would bet someone on a 30 K a year job could really stretch and get to 10,000 a year saved.
Since our hypothetical person can just fit in the calculator, he would have 20 million at the end of 40 years of living in pretty terrible conditions. Just my opinion, but probably not the best way to go about getting to that space walk. I gave the person an average of 15% returns per year. I am not sure where you got your 21% returns on Berkshire Hathaway but looking at historical prices on yahoo, in the beginning of 1990 the stock was trading at 8200 and just closed at 90200. This implies a 15.5% annualized return. I don't know about stock performance before that, but there is a great deal of research to suggest that since the 70's, risk premiums have been steadily falling in the market place(to about 1/2 of what they once were).
My point is just that I dont' think it is possible to do if all you are satisfied with is a 30K a year job.
there are other jobs that are much quicker at getting to the money. If you have the skills, you can become a trader(like Wall Street) or some other type of banker. If you are willing to work really hard, you can start earning 120K a year at 22. If you are really willing to work hard and get into trading, that can quickly become 750K - 1 million a year by the time you are 26.
But, its not a job many would want to take. The hours are unappealing for most people. But if you really want it, you can drive towards that end. There is a lot of money to be made.
you're off. the nsa taps were not aimed at known terrorist phone numbers. They were aimed at phones that made frequent calls to countries with known terrorist ties(namely, anywhere in the middle east). The data as to who was being called and where the calls were coming from was being used in order to narrow down possible terrorists. If they were known terrorist phone numbers, the wiretaps could begin immediately and concurrently, the administration could request clearance through FISA and the special court set up to hear these things. The interesting thing is, all the government needs to do is give a very limited reason as to why the taps are needed.
If they knew the phone numbers belonged to terrorists, it wouldn't be a problem to get a warrant for a wire tap. So to say the warrantless wiretaps were required for security is only meaningful if the government was partaking in broad based surveilance of anyone who made any contact with person's from the middle east.
In defense of Enron, before the debacle of the late 90's, they were a rock solid company. They pioneered new strategies in the energy market. I think Ken Lay was really a genius. similarly, I've heard Hitler might be the greatest orator of the last century. Being good at something != being moral.
Granted, I've never heard much about the genius of the management team at the other companies. But I do step to the defense of Enron when it was a legitimate business. And oddly enough, Ken Lay supposedly had a lot to do with Enron's strategic direction back then.
not to bash jobs, I think he is great, but he gets compensated better htan most CEO's out there. Massive stock grants, multi million dollar planes, and loads of other "gifts" from the board to show their appreciation. I'm sure if the board completely stopped doing this as well, Jobs might reconsider accepting 1$ in contractual pay.
and let me clarify, it doesn't require greed to want to get compensated for your money, time, and the value you add. He led apple through an amazing turn around and was at the helm during 4 major occurances: the Ipod, switch to Unix OS, Intel Chips, and streamlining of computer production. But I'd bet he feels he has well earned those gifts just as much as he would probably ask for a very hefty salary for his incredible performance.
you buy anything from China or made in any third world country? I know the answer is yes so quit complaining when someone does not believe in a minimum wage. YOu believe in a much worse type of minimum wage by the way you choose to spend money than anyone believing in not having a minimum wage(which does not imply wage slavery. even before the minimum wage labor collaborated to prevent wage slavery).
Lots would rather see higher employment and hten supplement that income because there are big psychological factors with having a job rather than living only on handouts.
My point about the airlines is that sometimes, it is better for the consumer when deregulation occurs. But it only happens when it occurs in the correct markets. Some markets are not set up for deregulation becuase with regulation came incredibly strong monopolies.
why does it have to be completely one way or the other? maybe in this case, deregulation will allow already in place monopolies to completely rape the market. it might not with the right regulations left in place.
there are a lot of people that don't believe in the minimum wage. I'm not one, but it is a valid viewpoint.
btw, you are wrong if you really believe less regulation leads to fewer choices all the time. Read about the deregulation of the airline industry. air travel was deregulated at the right time such that that all the major airlines that were originally protected are now in bankruptcy. I'm not trying to say it always works, but it can under the right conditions.
but they are still holding to that cycle of yours. We have observed that our word is seemingly governed by a linear set of equations(q. mech) and a non linear set up equations(gen rel). We have also seen that we can effectively merge two of the linear models(weak and EM force) and get a very robust set of equations that made a prediction that was shown to be true. Further, the strong force is described using the same framework as the electroweak force.
Now what I said above is pretty much accurate towards every physics textbook and guage theory book I have started(never made it all the way through a guage theory book). Now we have observed that three of the four forces we have ever observed seem to be described by one force(possible, not proven that the strong force can also be drawn into that mix). furthermore, those theories were developed when people decided to use the geometric interpretation of einstein for a force. So maybe we have attacked these four forces from the wrong direction. maybe they can all be unified and that will give us a new prediction(like electro-weak theory did, the top quark).
Now physicists are working on step 2. String theory is, I believe, prematurely called a theory. Lots of people are still trying to work out the math to get something equivalent to Schrodinger's equation so they can step forward. Then they can make an experimental prediction. Few string theorists have the audacity to state taht it is some final theory or is definitely correct. But this is how you do it. It took newton many years to describe his physics because he had to create calculus. Well, they are doing the same thing now. some cycles just aren't as fast as you seem to want. I don't mean this as an insult, just as a different view point.
that is odd that he had such a problem with not getting general anesthetic. when I had mine pulled, I Had to have general anesthetic because they were going to cut them out of the jaw bone and not let them get severely impacted(they were sitting partially under my 12 year molars already). But everyone else in my family that had the procedure done just used local and was awake during the procedure. sometimes, it just helps to request general if you are squeamish about what they are doing. I mean, those are your strongest teeth and therefore, the most difficult to pull. I'm just saying, don't always blame the doctor. A lot of amputations are done without using general anesthetic and this is for the patient's safety. I'm sure it can leave a severe mental scar though.
you're right. I think I'm going to start buying only american made cloth to put those poor people in NC back into business and run those chinese clothing manufacturers out of business. I mean, those poor people were never able to find jobs in this static american economy that is incapable of making new jobs when the old ones get moved to the developing countries.
You're just nicely ignoring the new jobs that can be created and are created.
(the qualified/smart foreign workers were smart enough to get hired by US companies and move here on H1B, the not so smart are what we pay when we outsource).
complete BS, but in your limited view go on adn believe it. Lots of people have left US after recieving an H1B because they can go to Infosys and work in the outsourcing projects, making half as much money but living in a much nicer home with a couple servants and a nice car. Especially in India, money goes much much further.
oh, how do I know? because already several members in my family have done just that.
of course, the BofA system is nice to thwart you. If you are believed to have done a sub par job, they pull your severance pay(it was in the article).
there is a difference. what we have today is the internet version of wal mart paying for band width. They have to pay the big telcos loads of money so that they can be online and have massive upload and download streams available. so do we customers.
now they want to get rid of neutrality. that means if there is congestion, you can pay more and move your traffic to the front of the line. that means during rush hour, wal mart could pay more so that I had the ability to take some special lane that went to wal mart and was only for wal mart customers.
Of course, this means that they are paying twice. once to get bandwidth, adn then again to make sure the bandwidth they already paid for is available. the real problem is telco's would like to be able to sell bandwidth that doesn't exist just so they can then turn around and demand more money to give your traffic priority.
Now have you ever seen a wal mart only lane in any town? that is how the proposals about network neutrality are different.
I don't know.....
My vision of Aunt Jemima tumbing down the streets of Boston crushing the populace is pretty ha-ha funny in my book...
I think its funny two of your three favorites would probably still be on the nintendo only if it weren't for Nintendo's arrogance back when sony got into the console business......
funny how a misstep like that can give up your stranglehold in the market.
7/9 or ~78%.
much, but I didn't know they could get the working material up to 1800 K ever. I've only heard of numbers in the 800 to 900 range. Anyways, carnot is not a good engine to compare to because it takes infinite time to do a carnot cycle. its probably the stirling engine would give better numbers though i don't remmeber its efficiency formula. I think its along the lines of 1-sqrt[(tc/th)]
you're way off base with your heat engine. there is no law that requires efficiency to be less than 50%. only that efficiency of any heat engine can never be 100%.
the theoretical limit is
1- (Tc/Th) where
Tc is the temperature of your exhaust(cold resevoir)
and
Th is the temeprature of your hot resevoir(basically, how hot you get the material)
If your cold resevoir is at absolute 0, you can have 100% efficency(impossible) but let's look at other options:
a gas engine , given some compression ratio, has a max efficiency of:
1-s^(f-1) where
s: inverse of the compression ratio
f: f is approximately 7/5 for air
so if you can get your compression ratio extremely high, you can be efficient.
btw, its probably a bad idea to make up physics on slashdot.
all these numbers are from : Thermal Physics by Schroeder