Most of your Window users are technologically illiterate. IE is there it works why fart around with it. To use a sort of car analogy how many people look under the hood of their car? Never mind improve it beyond stock. Now I bet the guys that heavily modify their cars have higher intelligence than the average stiff. Any person inclined to tinker with or improve things most likely is smarter than the average Joe. Average Joe is most likely to push the largest shiniest button with a flashing red light whatever the case may be, especially is the button say "Do not touch".
Well, let's improve that a little...
The average car user is pretty dumb about cars. Those that get under the hood and modify them are smarter than the average Joe when it comes to cars. But your average car technician is pretty dumb about computers, and your average programmer is smarter than than them about computers. So your point?
I didn't like Ribbon first either, but after getting used to it I like it much more than the previous Office UI's. It does take some adjustment if you've used the old ones, but that's true for every kind of change. And people don't like changes, but the truth is, Ribbon is much better interface.
It's not simply about change, but change in available functionality. As others have pointed out, you have less functionality with the Ribbon than before; things were renamed (e.g. Paste Special to Copy Special), and were re-ordered based on how Microsoft thought they should be ordered, not users. The older Toolbars let the user customize them so that things were ordered based on how the user needed them and could add custom stuff that was not already available.
It would be stupid to drag using bad interface because old users hate change.
Bad interface according to whom? Obviously there are a lot of people that find the Ribbon UI to be a bad interface. So which one is the real drag? It depends on your persepctive.
Everything is displayed much more clearly.
That's to be disputed as well. My wife has Office 2007 and I am always trying to find stuff with it. It's not intuitive, not logically organized, and often more difficult to find things resulting in much lost productivity. It shouldn't take 5 minutes to figure out simple things - especially simple things that were very easy to get to in older versions of the software and now you have to click 5 times as much to do the same task.
I noticed this especially when I used Office products I haven't really used much before.If I had used them, it was always more work adjusting. But when they were new to begin with, there was no problem. I think Ribbon is still a great idea, especially for non-geeks. I guess they could include both interfaces though, like Opera does (not with Ribbon, but with hiding menu).
And therein lays one of the major issues. If you haven't used the older software then you have no expectations of the interface so it may feel just fine. However, when you have used the older software you do have an expectation for what it should be able to do and how quickly and when it doesn't match up, there is a problem - or when it had an association and completely changed it, etc.
Needless to say, I can get a lot of people to use OpenOffice/etc now because of the Ribbon UI's.
And I would also have to add that many people don't know about doing simple things like switching the OS skin on Win7 to "Classic" - it just doesn't even occur to them that they should be able to; yet that is one of the first things I do to get to a more familiar environment (even in WinXP) so that I can actually find stuff - even in Control Panel!
In today's agile world, who gets time to maintain technical debt. How does paying technical debt ever give your app that new feature that your marketing department is pushing for -- to have out by tomorrow. I think the rules have changed in how companies push their software development organizations to deliver software. That may be the biggest reason that quality is different than it was. That and the other programs have been worked on forever.
It also comes into play with how long it takes you to add the new feature that they want you to add. Sometimes its better to go ahead and take the hit so that the next 5 features can be added more quickly - so you'll quickly gain back the cost. Sadly, too many managers don't think in those terms, so they keep plodding on with the more expensive to maintain code-base.
The "traditional market" still uses a lot of Windows XP, which still has 60%+ of the Windows Desktop market share. Windows Vista peaked out at around 10%, which most all converted to Win7, which has thus far gotten around 25-30% but still pales in comparison to Windows XP.
Microsoft has, nonetheless, trumpeted both Vista and Win7 has having record sales. However, that neglects to take into account the licenses that were purchased for mere "downgrading" to WinXP, or the multiple licenses people may have purchased for the same computer to get the version of Windows most useful for them (especially with Win7 where more and more OEMS are going to Windows 7 Starter as the default version).
The only people who got Vista were those that bought new computers with it. Mostly the same with Win7, though a lot of Vista users upgraded to Win7 as well. Microsoft cut off the path for WinXP users to upgrade directly to Win7, so WinXP users didn't do it.
Expect the same shenanigans with Win8, which will sell extremely poor but Microsoft will make it look like a gold rush nonetheless.
the article is entirely missing the point. range extension doesn't help if the vehicle into which the range extension is placed is massively inefficient. that means that you need to fix the problems associated with standard vehicle designs (box and wedge shapes) in order to get the aerodynamics losses cut by at least 50%, and you need to cut the weight by over 70% (1.5 to 2.0 tonnes down to 350kg) in order to be able to take advantage of hard compound "ECO" tyres, which would otherwise rapidly wear out on a "standard" car. once the aerodynamics are efficient and the weight is low, "range extension" actually provides enough power to run the vehicle pretty much directly. see http://lkcl.net/ev for details.
First, adjust your view of what it means to get the best aerodynamics. The Mercedes Boxfish car (http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=mercedes+boxfish+car&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) does better than nearly any car out there for fuel efficiency - especially when compared in the same engine type, and would not meet what you say - it's very boxy in front and wedge-like in back.
Second, if you want to reduce weight then you need to use stronger materials. Those materials are likely going to be more expensive than the heavier but cheap materials currently being used. If you don't do that, then safety is out the window and the vehicle won't be able to be sold.
Third, Range Extension is important. Yes, most of the time you may not drive more than 40 miles both ways to work. But it's easy to put on 100 miles a day when running errands - even 150 miles, and you might do that all without going back home or stopping to recharge the vehicle if you started out with full tank/capacity. So certainly having at least a 200 mile range would be required for 90% of the vehicular uses. However, you still need to extend that so allow people to travel the full day easily, and this is where Range Extension comes in - making that 400, 800, or 1000 mile trip in a single day - e.g. for a funeral or medical emergency on short notice, seeing family for the holidays, or simply traveling to school (e.g. college students - I've known some to travel a couple thousand miles in a short time-frame, stopping only when required; so range extension would be vital).
Does Range Extension need to be efficient? Not extremely so, but certainly more efficient the better.
Personally, I take the stance that a vehicle that cannot travel upwards of 1000 miles a day is useless to me; but then, I do travel long distances (950 miles a day) in a day at times to see friends and family for special occasions (e.g. weddings, holidays). However, I have no problem with a system where I could travel 400-500 miles and then stop for a meal and recharge over the course of the meal (e.g. between 30 and 90 minutes depending on the restaurant); but what is most useful is a pure electric vehicle with an assistant motor (e.g. gas, etc.) to recharge the batteries relatively efficiently (e.g. 1 gallon of gas to go from low charge to full capacity while the vehicle is fully operating) - Chevy Volt comes close, but still misses the mark just a bit - but it's better than nearly all the others (e.g. Toyota Prius) in their approaches by a magnitudes.
Seriously, continue documenting the existing systems until you have them all documented. Then start building a layout in how they are all integrated so you can see how everything relates. Once there, start with the core components and components with the fewest connections to other components and start updating/replacing them until you have it all replaced and upgraded to something more to your liking.
However, you'll probably leave before that is all done - thereby making it a greater mess for the next guy.
I never quite understood the moral panic that seems to appear when this comes up. Asking people to pay for what they use doesn't seem like *that* radical a concept to me.
The problem is not that people are not paying for what they use, but that the ISPs don't want to give you what you pay for.
Consider their Bandwidth Cap strategies. If you purchase a 1Mbps connection for a month, then you ought to be able to peak it to 1 Mbps for the entire duration of the month - or (1Mbps * 3600 * 24 * 365.25 / 12) = 2628900 Mbits or 2628.900 Gbits of data transfer. Compare that to the 250 Gbit bandwidth caps they are putting on their customers, which is only 1/5th (20%) of that 1Mbps connection. Now remember that they are not selling 1Mbps connections to people - but anywhere up to 20Mbps. So while you are paying for a connection rate, you may only be allowed to use anywhere between 1% and 20% of that connection rate over the period you are paying for it.
If instead they actually tried to provide the service the customer is purchasing - capping at the full bandwidth purchased, most effectively done by capping at the specified connection speed - people wouldn't complain, they'd happily fork over more for a faster connection with an effectively higher cap; compared to now where the cap is 250Gbit regardless of whether it is a 1 Mbps or 20Mbps connection.
Doesn't seem to hard a concept for them to provide what they are being contracted for now does it? Of course, that would require that they upgrade their infrastructure to actually handle that, which is their real objection - they'd rather complain, cap you below what you paid for, ultimately not deliver the service, and pocket the profits instead.
We can make your entire industry irrelevant with a single referendum. Tread lightly, telecoms.
Don't forget that the cable companies have sued municipalities and shutdown their locally provided networks based on the contracts they struck with the counties the municipalities operate in...yeah, it sucks. Someone really needs to rule those kinds of contracts illegal.
...the average TV costs a lot more than it use to as they are all trying to sell you large LCD or Plasma displays with the latest 3D functionality that no one really wants. Forget about content, people simply can't afford the TVs!
Seriously - back in 2006 we got a 24" CRT TV for between $100-$150USD if I recall correctly. It recently died - nice big blue spark and no more picture etc. So I recycled it. Since then we've been borrowing my sister's 32" LCD TV while we decide what to do. I keep looking around, but the only things at a cheap price are knockoffs that have no quality behind them, and the ones that do have the quality recognition are way too expensive - enough that it easily compares to getting a nice little projector instead.
So, the TV industry is making it more economical than ever for people to ditch their TVs and switch to using computers and Internet-based services (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, etc.) instead of Cable or OTA broadcasts. Not only is the Internet-based services more convenient (since you can start/stop watching all you like without a DVR) but they're cheaper too and run on your existing computers.
Sometimes the right thing to do is to press on on amber - I usually stop but only if there's time to do it without the half-asleep moron behind rearranging the back of your car.
Ehr, that's the entire purpose of the amber light (or yellow light as we prefer to call it). When the light turns yellow, if you are far enough away from the light to stop normally, then you stop. Otherwise you can continue.
Yellow lights are tuned for this -- the duration of the yellow is determined by the maximum speed for the road it is placed in and the normal stopping distance + reaction time of a driver. In countries where they have common sense anyway.
Sadly, some localities time the yellows to minimal regardless to increase revenue. Not right, but it happens. Localities in Pennsylvania are extremely bad in that respect.
That said, my wife was nearly rear ended once having stopped for the yellow - she stopped as it first turned, she should have gone through IMHO as it was still yellow for several seconds after she stopped. The driver behind her - who was traveling more than adequately safely behind her to stop - wasn't paying attention or something. His car was perpendicular to her's and missed her by near inches as he swerved and cut off a semi in the next lane to avoid her; still pulled it straight and ran the red too.
This is why I'm somewhat supportive of stop light cameras. It's not like speed cameras which don't really target the real problem, aggressive or careless driving. Going through a red light poses real danger and is a clear example of reckless driving. Of course, I realize that stop light cameras are abused as well; one popular tactic being to shorten the yellow in order to boost the number of offenders. Otherwise running red lights is a persistent problem I don't really see anyone addressing. Probably because it involves more effort and brings in less revenue than going after speeders.
The problem with Stop Light Cameras is their lack of Due Process. That is the main legal hurdle for them in S.C - nothing notifies you when it happens and you have no means to object; further, they do not take in account traffic engineering such as localities timing the lights to encourage people to be ticketed - and other factors; not to mention the whole issue of someone who is not the registered owner driving the vehicle and getting the owner ticketed as a result.
No, Stop Light Cameras are not the solution. There really is not simple solution as it is a human problem. Remove the human element (e.g. autonomous vehicles) would certainly make a big difference - until the humans override the autonomous vehicle to do what they want (e.g. by crackers or otherwise).
> Have a mechanism that can quickly raise a physical barrier (nice thick steel plate or something) in front of where you're supposed to stop at the red. The barrier lowers when it's green.
From what I've seen where I llive, you don't need anything anywhere near that drastic. People here will slow down to 2 mph and carefully and gingerly make their way over three-inch speed bumps.
So, have *five*-inch mechanical speed bumps at the stop lines, synchronized with the lights. The drivers' brains will explode as they struggle to decide which animal urge to follow, to display their status by blasting through the light, or protect their property by stopping.
Won't stop anyone. My wife's grandmother would run the Michigan "Speed Humps" (yep, that's what the signs read) at normal speed - 25MPH or so; and after wards be like "oh well' before hitting the next one (there's 4 on one block alone near where she lives - and she hits them all that way). BTW, the "Speed Humps" are probably about 5-6" tall and 3-4 ft wide; rising relatively sharply. And no, most low-rider vehicles would not be able to cross them.
Well, our children won't be allowed any TV/etc before the age of 2, as that has been linked dramatically with attention-deficit-disorder, a direct result of the constantly flipping of scenes, etc. to keep the attention of viewers. After the age of 2, well, we might start letting them watch something here or there, but nothing consistent.
Further, our TV will be hidden from view for the most part to help encourage them to do other activities. (My preference is to use a project hidden in the wall on one side of the room and displays on the opposing wall.) And yes, the Wii, etc. will be plugged in through those too.
As to computers - I don't intend to introduce them to computers until much later - probably 5 or so; and then I'll do it with something like OLPC. Even then, we'll be encouraging them to read, etc. using books (not eBooks), etc.
CS and engineering are great degrees, but you will be in the same tent by the OWS when you can't find a job other than a buck private (well PFC due to college education) in the Army. Or you can fight the illegals for the job loading apples onto the truck.
A law degree means you will be employable for the rest of your life, far more than a CCIE, CISSP, RHCA, or any certs. You may not be at Ben Dover & C. Howlett Fields law firm, but you will always have a job and can feed your family at a standard of income adjusted for inflation and the region.
Forget about CS. Get through college on a pre-law track, hit law school, pass the bar, and save the CS stuff for a hobby which you will have plenty of disposable income to spend on.
Don't know your background AC, but with a CE degree, you're pretty much open ended as to what to do. If you want to do software, your qualified and can get a job in most any software firm, etc. If you want to do hardware, you can do that too. If you want to do OS, embedded software, or device drivers - well, a CE degree is pretty much required - and most everyone you'll be competing with for the position will have some combination of CE and CS - either CE BS and MS, or a CS BS and CE MS; occasionally you'll run into some with a CE BS and a CS MS, but that's rarer.
So a job will not be an issue - especially since CE graduates are harder to come by. And if all else fails, you can fall back on the EE side of the CE and do anything an general EE can do as well.
...do Computer Engineering instead. You'll have a far better degree with more opportunities and a better understanding of computers, both practical and theoretical.
That's why we have the ninth ammendment. If SCOTUS isn't aware of it, we're beyond hope. Those who say there isn't a right to privacy, see the ninth. It doesn't get discussed as much as the others; but it's fundamental as you say. It's so fundamental that I thought it was in the Constitution. I vaguely rememembered the wording, and when I came up dry in there I went looking at the bills and sure enough there it was.
Exactly. The U.S Constitution defines the limited Federal Government; and anything not expressly granted via the Constitution to the Federal Government is thereby granted to the States and the People. As the State Constitutions are to reflect the Federal one, the same passes on from the State to Local Governments (County, City, Municipal, etc.) and the people. This is the failing of numerous bills in Congress - from DMCA to ProtectIP/SOPA to ObamaCare. Even Medicare/Medicaide/Welfare/SocialSecurity fail in many respects to be legal under the Constitution as a result. However, we've let Congress run amuck and the States have not fought back sufficiently either; often doing the will of Congress without a fight.
This is also the major difference between the Civil Rights Protests and the current Occupy protests. The Civil Rights protests were about extending existing rights to all people; where Occupy is all about taking from others for themselves (entitlements).
On the other hand, the Constitution says nothing about the right to Welfare, Health Care, work, food, unionize, borrow money, etc. You, as a citizen, are expected to contribute towards your own quality of life, not be handed it - essentially, the right to pursue happiness, but not necessarily the right of happiness.
Actually I've noticed that the number of people who disagree with US policies is increasing. Slowly, yes, but people who are out of work and have very little to do but actually pay attention to what is going on seem to be getting the picture.
Well, I'd gander that it's more like 99% of the US doesn't agree with quite a few of the US policies; but feel they can't do anything about them with the amount of play that the various PACs, Super PACs, and Corporations do to get Congress to do their bidding; personally, I'd limit those groups to the Senate and reserve the House of Representatives for the people - e.g. no money from anyone but their constituents for elections (and directly at that), etc.
Yes, you have to look at source control; but then you also have to account for: (i) the developers that check every little thing in, and (ii) the developers that check in only the completed work, who may have had 10 different copies of it on their local system in the process.
Yes, you have to take into account the output - the product, customers, maintenance, etc.
But you also have to account for the communication - who much communication, how effective was the communication, etc. And that's a really hard thing to do without (i) an AI that can do it, and (ii) recording every kind of communication (email, blog, chat, phones, water cooler discussion, etc.) that happens among the people involved - which is far more important for software than people realize as that's where the solutions derive from.
It's easier to just refactor for re-use after the fact than try to design upfront for something that might someday never happen.
Only if you upgrade the original source to use it as well. The point of designing with re-use in mind is that the original doesn't have to have much work to continue using the same code once its been re-used in something else as well. It may be a pain, but its often very worth the benefit.
Well, no matter the size of the company you can simply do it by issuing yourself a single stock in a special class of stock that gives you permanent control so long as you hold that one stock. Page & Brin did that with Google - they have veto power over anything the other shareholders want to do because they have a special class of stock. It's actually rather easy to do, but not very common - at least in the public's mind.
Microsoft and most companies limit the length of the call because many financial professionals need to be on dozens of these calls over the course of a month. If all of the meetings were all day affairs a lot of the meetings would lose attendance because the financial professionals need to do other work. Therefore they include the important bits in the 30 min - 1 hour call. Berkshire Hathaway is the exception to this rule, but it tends not to be that widely held by professional investors as they can directly invest in the same companies as Berkshire does.
So then the financial firms would have to hirer more financial professionals to listen in and comment on all those calls...hmmm...perhaps they could all help with the unemployment situation.;-)
You cite the exceptions. Have you considered discovering the rule?
From what I can tell, I am exciting the rule as opposed to the exceptions - the exceptions being enforcement of the company holding onto the ideas. The basic issue is - if the company has no interest in it, then they typically will not pursue it regardless of what it is - it's just not worth it to them so long as you are not disrupting their market which tends not to be the case.
Even with Non-Compete Clauses, companies tend to only try to enforce them when its with a direct competitor and a position that would have a very big impact on the company the employee left from - otherwise again, it's not worth it to pursue it. So for example, Microsoft has complained to high heaven about Google poaching some of their employees - but they're direct competitors in those areas.
So really when it comes down to it, it doesn't normally make sense for a company to try to enforce either a non-compete or an ownership clause with their former employees. So it is more the norm that such things would not be enforced than that that are.
Of course, it'll be hard to really prove either way - such things probably settle long before getting to court in 99% of the cases where they are enforced - so you'd never hear about it, and you won't likely be able to find much in the way of surveys on actual enforcement - you probably will on whether people think either is a good idea or useful or not - as they probably settle with terms that neither can talk about in the future, or its simply satisfy the non-compete through holder positions (e.g. someone who specializes in waveform analysis may have to spend a few years looking at bacteria to satisfy the non-compete before being able to get back to their specialty; or someone who has a management position in hard drives might have to manage keyboards until the non-compete is up; or similar scenarios).
Slashdot Mirror
Most of your Window users are technologically illiterate. IE is there it works why fart around with it. To use a sort of car analogy how many people look under the hood of their car? Never mind improve it beyond stock. Now I bet the guys that heavily modify their cars have higher intelligence than the average stiff. Any person inclined to tinker with or improve things most likely is smarter than the average Joe. Average Joe is most likely to push the largest shiniest button with a flashing red light whatever the case may be, especially is the button say "Do not touch".
Well, let's improve that a little...
The average car user is pretty dumb about cars. Those that get under the hood and modify them are smarter than the average Joe when it comes to cars. But your average car technician is pretty dumb about computers, and your average programmer is smarter than than them about computers. So your point?
It's not simply about change, but change in available functionality. As others have pointed out, you have less functionality with the Ribbon than before; things were renamed (e.g. Paste Special to Copy Special), and were re-ordered based on how Microsoft thought they should be ordered, not users. The older Toolbars let the user customize them so that things were ordered based on how the user needed them and could add custom stuff that was not already available.
Bad interface according to whom? Obviously there are a lot of people that find the Ribbon UI to be a bad interface. So which one is the real drag? It depends on your persepctive.
That's to be disputed as well. My wife has Office 2007 and I am always trying to find stuff with it. It's not intuitive, not logically organized, and often more difficult to find things resulting in much lost productivity. It shouldn't take 5 minutes to figure out simple things - especially simple things that were very easy to get to in older versions of the software and now you have to click 5 times as much to do the same task.
And therein lays one of the major issues. If you haven't used the older software then you have no expectations of the interface so it may feel just fine. However, when you have used the older software you do have an expectation for what it should be able to do and how quickly and when it doesn't match up, there is a problem - or when it had an association and completely changed it, etc.
Needless to say, I can get a lot of people to use OpenOffice/etc now because of the Ribbon UI's.
And I would also have to add that many people don't know about doing simple things like switching the OS skin on Win7 to "Classic" - it just doesn't even occur to them that they should be able to; yet that is one of the first things I do to get to a more familiar environment (even in WinXP) so that I can actually find stuff - even in Control Panel!
The TSA is the only agency hated more that the IRS. Considering the head start the IRS had, that is an impressive achievement!
Doesn't help that TSA has screwed over its own employees so it gets the hatred double time - by the public AND itself.
In today's agile world, who gets time to maintain technical debt. How does paying technical debt ever give your app that new feature that your marketing department is pushing for -- to have out by tomorrow. I think the rules have changed in how companies push their software development organizations to deliver software. That may be the biggest reason that quality is different than it was. That and the other programs have been worked on forever.
It also comes into play with how long it takes you to add the new feature that they want you to add. Sometimes its better to go ahead and take the hit so that the next 5 features can be added more quickly - so you'll quickly gain back the cost. Sadly, too many managers don't think in those terms, so they keep plodding on with the more expensive to maintain code-base.
...battery corrosion thereby breaking the keyboard.
The "traditional market" still uses a lot of Windows XP, which still has 60%+ of the Windows Desktop market share. Windows Vista peaked out at around 10%, which most all converted to Win7, which has thus far gotten around 25-30% but still pales in comparison to Windows XP.
Microsoft has, nonetheless, trumpeted both Vista and Win7 has having record sales. However, that neglects to take into account the licenses that were purchased for mere "downgrading" to WinXP, or the multiple licenses people may have purchased for the same computer to get the version of Windows most useful for them (especially with Win7 where more and more OEMS are going to Windows 7 Starter as the default version).
The only people who got Vista were those that bought new computers with it. Mostly the same with Win7, though a lot of Vista users upgraded to Win7 as well. Microsoft cut off the path for WinXP users to upgrade directly to Win7, so WinXP users didn't do it.
Expect the same shenanigans with Win8, which will sell extremely poor but Microsoft will make it look like a gold rush nonetheless.
the article is entirely missing the point. range extension doesn't help if the vehicle into which the range extension is placed is massively inefficient. that means that you need to fix the problems associated with standard vehicle designs (box and wedge shapes) in order to get the aerodynamics losses cut by at least 50%, and you need to cut the weight by over 70% (1.5 to 2.0 tonnes down to 350kg) in order to be able to take advantage of hard compound "ECO" tyres, which would otherwise rapidly wear out on a "standard" car. once the aerodynamics are efficient and the weight is low, "range extension" actually provides enough power to run the vehicle pretty much directly. see http://lkcl.net/ev for details.
First, adjust your view of what it means to get the best aerodynamics. The Mercedes Boxfish car (http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=mercedes+boxfish+car&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) does better than nearly any car out there for fuel efficiency - especially when compared in the same engine type, and would not meet what you say - it's very boxy in front and wedge-like in back.
Second, if you want to reduce weight then you need to use stronger materials. Those materials are likely going to be more expensive than the heavier but cheap materials currently being used. If you don't do that, then safety is out the window and the vehicle won't be able to be sold.
Third, Range Extension is important. Yes, most of the time you may not drive more than 40 miles both ways to work. But it's easy to put on 100 miles a day when running errands - even 150 miles, and you might do that all without going back home or stopping to recharge the vehicle if you started out with full tank/capacity. So certainly having at least a 200 mile range would be required for 90% of the vehicular uses. However, you still need to extend that so allow people to travel the full day easily, and this is where Range Extension comes in - making that 400, 800, or 1000 mile trip in a single day - e.g. for a funeral or medical emergency on short notice, seeing family for the holidays, or simply traveling to school (e.g. college students - I've known some to travel a couple thousand miles in a short time-frame, stopping only when required; so range extension would be vital).
Does Range Extension need to be efficient? Not extremely so, but certainly more efficient the better.
Personally, I take the stance that a vehicle that cannot travel upwards of 1000 miles a day is useless to me; but then, I do travel long distances (950 miles a day) in a day at times to see friends and family for special occasions (e.g. weddings, holidays). However, I have no problem with a system where I could travel 400-500 miles and then stop for a meal and recharge over the course of the meal (e.g. between 30 and 90 minutes depending on the restaurant); but what is most useful is a pure electric vehicle with an assistant motor (e.g. gas, etc.) to recharge the batteries relatively efficiently (e.g. 1 gallon of gas to go from low charge to full capacity while the vehicle is fully operating) - Chevy Volt comes close, but still misses the mark just a bit - but it's better than nearly all the others (e.g. Toyota Prius) in their approaches by a magnitudes.
Seriously, continue documenting the existing systems until you have them all documented. Then start building a layout in how they are all integrated so you can see how everything relates. Once there, start with the core components and components with the fewest connections to other components and start updating/replacing them until you have it all replaced and upgraded to something more to your liking.
However, you'll probably leave before that is all done - thereby making it a greater mess for the next guy.
Just saying...
The problem is not that people are not paying for what they use, but that the ISPs don't want to give you what you pay for.
Consider their Bandwidth Cap strategies. If you purchase a 1Mbps connection for a month, then you ought to be able to peak it to 1 Mbps for the entire duration of the month - or (1Mbps * 3600 * 24 * 365.25 / 12) = 2628900 Mbits or 2628.900 Gbits of data transfer. Compare that to the 250 Gbit bandwidth caps they are putting on their customers, which is only 1/5th (20%) of that 1Mbps connection. Now remember that they are not selling 1Mbps connections to people - but anywhere up to 20Mbps. So while you are paying for a connection rate, you may only be allowed to use anywhere between 1% and 20% of that connection rate over the period you are paying for it.
If instead they actually tried to provide the service the customer is purchasing - capping at the full bandwidth purchased, most effectively done by capping at the specified connection speed - people wouldn't complain, they'd happily fork over more for a faster connection with an effectively higher cap; compared to now where the cap is 250Gbit regardless of whether it is a 1 Mbps or 20Mbps connection.
Doesn't seem to hard a concept for them to provide what they are being contracted for now does it? Of course, that would require that they upgrade their infrastructure to actually handle that, which is their real objection - they'd rather complain, cap you below what you paid for, ultimately not deliver the service, and pocket the profits instead.
We can make your entire industry irrelevant with a single referendum. Tread lightly, telecoms.
Don't forget that the cable companies have sued municipalities and shutdown their locally provided networks based on the contracts they struck with the counties the municipalities operate in...yeah, it sucks. Someone really needs to rule those kinds of contracts illegal.
...the average TV costs a lot more than it use to as they are all trying to sell you large LCD or Plasma displays with the latest 3D functionality that no one really wants. Forget about content, people simply can't afford the TVs!
Seriously - back in 2006 we got a 24" CRT TV for between $100-$150USD if I recall correctly. It recently died - nice big blue spark and no more picture etc. So I recycled it. Since then we've been borrowing my sister's 32" LCD TV while we decide what to do. I keep looking around, but the only things at a cheap price are knockoffs that have no quality behind them, and the ones that do have the quality recognition are way too expensive - enough that it easily compares to getting a nice little projector instead.
So, the TV industry is making it more economical than ever for people to ditch their TVs and switch to using computers and Internet-based services (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, etc.) instead of Cable or OTA broadcasts. Not only is the Internet-based services more convenient (since you can start/stop watching all you like without a DVR) but they're cheaper too and run on your existing computers.
Now if only Netflix would support Linux...
Ehr, that's the entire purpose of the amber light (or yellow light as we prefer to call it). When the light turns yellow, if you are far enough away from the light to stop normally, then you stop. Otherwise you can continue.
Yellow lights are tuned for this -- the duration of the yellow is determined by the maximum speed for the road it is placed in and the normal stopping distance + reaction time of a driver. In countries where they have common sense anyway.
Sadly, some localities time the yellows to minimal regardless to increase revenue. Not right, but it happens. Localities in Pennsylvania are extremely bad in that respect.
That said, my wife was nearly rear ended once having stopped for the yellow - she stopped as it first turned, she should have gone through IMHO as it was still yellow for several seconds after she stopped. The driver behind her - who was traveling more than adequately safely behind her to stop - wasn't paying attention or something. His car was perpendicular to her's and missed her by near inches as he swerved and cut off a semi in the next lane to avoid her; still pulled it straight and ran the red too.
The problem with Stop Light Cameras is their lack of Due Process. That is the main legal hurdle for them in S.C - nothing notifies you when it happens and you have no means to object; further, they do not take in account traffic engineering such as localities timing the lights to encourage people to be ticketed - and other factors; not to mention the whole issue of someone who is not the registered owner driving the vehicle and getting the owner ticketed as a result.
No, Stop Light Cameras are not the solution. There really is not simple solution as it is a human problem. Remove the human element (e.g. autonomous vehicles) would certainly make a big difference - until the humans override the autonomous vehicle to do what they want (e.g. by crackers or otherwise).
> Have a mechanism that can quickly raise a physical barrier (nice thick steel plate or something) in front of where you're supposed to stop at the red. The barrier lowers when it's green.
From what I've seen where I llive, you don't need anything anywhere near that drastic. People here will slow down to 2 mph and carefully and gingerly make their way over three-inch speed bumps.
So, have *five*-inch mechanical speed bumps at the stop lines, synchronized with the lights. The drivers' brains will explode as they struggle to decide which animal urge to follow, to display their status by blasting through the light, or protect their property by stopping.
Won't stop anyone. My wife's grandmother would run the Michigan "Speed Humps" (yep, that's what the signs read) at normal speed - 25MPH or so; and after wards be like "oh well' before hitting the next one (there's 4 on one block alone near where she lives - and she hits them all that way). BTW, the "Speed Humps" are probably about 5-6" tall and 3-4 ft wide; rising relatively sharply. And no, most low-rider vehicles would not be able to cross them.
Well, our children won't be allowed any TV/etc before the age of 2, as that has been linked dramatically with attention-deficit-disorder, a direct result of the constantly flipping of scenes, etc. to keep the attention of viewers. After the age of 2, well, we might start letting them watch something here or there, but nothing consistent.
Further, our TV will be hidden from view for the most part to help encourage them to do other activities. (My preference is to use a project hidden in the wall on one side of the room and displays on the opposing wall.) And yes, the Wii, etc. will be plugged in through those too.
As to computers - I don't intend to introduce them to computers until much later - probably 5 or so; and then I'll do it with something like OLPC. Even then, we'll be encouraging them to read, etc. using books (not eBooks), etc.
Even better, skip both, and get your J. D.
CS and engineering are great degrees, but you will be in the same tent by the OWS when you can't find a job other than a buck private (well PFC due to college education) in the Army. Or you can fight the illegals for the job loading apples onto the truck.
A law degree means you will be employable for the rest of your life, far more than a CCIE, CISSP, RHCA, or any certs. You may not be at Ben Dover & C. Howlett Fields law firm, but you will always have a job and can feed your family at a standard of income adjusted for inflation and the region.
Forget about CS. Get through college on a pre-law track, hit law school, pass the bar, and save the CS stuff for a hobby which you will have plenty of disposable income to spend on.
Don't know your background AC, but with a CE degree, you're pretty much open ended as to what to do. If you want to do software, your qualified and can get a job in most any software firm, etc. If you want to do hardware, you can do that too. If you want to do OS, embedded software, or device drivers - well, a CE degree is pretty much required - and most everyone you'll be competing with for the position will have some combination of CE and CS - either CE BS and MS, or a CS BS and CE MS; occasionally you'll run into some with a CE BS and a CS MS, but that's rarer.
So a job will not be an issue - especially since CE graduates are harder to come by. And if all else fails, you can fall back on the EE side of the CE and do anything an general EE can do as well.
So, as I said - lots of possibilities.
...do Computer Engineering instead. You'll have a far better degree with more opportunities and a better understanding of computers, both practical and theoretical.
That's why we have the ninth ammendment. If SCOTUS isn't aware of it, we're beyond hope. Those who say there isn't a right to privacy, see the ninth. It doesn't get discussed as much as the others; but it's fundamental as you say. It's so fundamental that I thought it was in the Constitution. I vaguely rememembered the wording, and when I came up dry in there I went looking at the bills and sure enough there it was.
Exactly. The U.S Constitution defines the limited Federal Government; and anything not expressly granted via the Constitution to the Federal Government is thereby granted to the States and the People. As the State Constitutions are to reflect the Federal one, the same passes on from the State to Local Governments (County, City, Municipal, etc.) and the people. This is the failing of numerous bills in Congress - from DMCA to ProtectIP/SOPA to ObamaCare. Even Medicare/Medicaide/Welfare/SocialSecurity fail in many respects to be legal under the Constitution as a result. However, we've let Congress run amuck and the States have not fought back sufficiently either; often doing the will of Congress without a fight.
This is also the major difference between the Civil Rights Protests and the current Occupy protests. The Civil Rights protests were about extending existing rights to all people; where Occupy is all about taking from others for themselves (entitlements).
On the other hand, the Constitution says nothing about the right to Welfare, Health Care, work, food, unionize, borrow money, etc. You, as a citizen, are expected to contribute towards your own quality of life, not be handed it - essentially, the right to pursue happiness, but not necessarily the right of happiness.
Actually I've noticed that the number of people who disagree with US policies is increasing. Slowly, yes, but people who are out of work and have very little to do but actually pay attention to what is going on seem to be getting the picture.
Well, I'd gander that it's more like 99% of the US doesn't agree with quite a few of the US policies; but feel they can't do anything about them with the amount of play that the various PACs, Super PACs, and Corporations do to get Congress to do their bidding; personally, I'd limit those groups to the Senate and reserve the House of Representatives for the people - e.g. no money from anyone but their constituents for elections (and directly at that), etc.
Welll....
Yes, you have to look at source control; but then you also have to account for: (i) the developers that check every little thing in, and (ii) the developers that check in only the completed work, who may have had 10 different copies of it on their local system in the process.
Yes, you have to take into account the output - the product, customers, maintenance, etc.
But you also have to account for the communication - who much communication, how effective was the communication, etc. And that's a really hard thing to do without (i) an AI that can do it, and (ii) recording every kind of communication (email, blog, chat, phones, water cooler discussion, etc.) that happens among the people involved - which is far more important for software than people realize as that's where the solutions derive from.
It's easier to just refactor for re-use after the fact than try to design upfront for something that might someday never happen.
Only if you upgrade the original source to use it as well. The point of designing with re-use in mind is that the original doesn't have to have much work to continue using the same code once its been re-used in something else as well. It may be a pain, but its often very worth the benefit.
Well, no matter the size of the company you can simply do it by issuing yourself a single stock in a special class of stock that gives you permanent control so long as you hold that one stock. Page & Brin did that with Google - they have veto power over anything the other shareholders want to do because they have a special class of stock. It's actually rather easy to do, but not very common - at least in the public's mind.
Microsoft and most companies limit the length of the call because many financial professionals need to be on dozens of these calls over the course of a month. If all of the meetings were all day affairs a lot of the meetings would lose attendance because the financial professionals need to do other work. Therefore they include the important bits in the 30 min - 1 hour call. Berkshire Hathaway is the exception to this rule, but it tends not to be that widely held by professional investors as they can directly invest in the same companies as Berkshire does.
So then the financial firms would have to hirer more financial professionals to listen in and comment on all those calls...hmmm...perhaps they could all help with the unemployment situation. ;-)
Doesn't MSFT pay dividends?
quarterly.
They have not always done so, that was rather recent (several years ago) to try to keep the stock holders happy.
You cite the exceptions. Have you considered discovering the rule?
From what I can tell, I am exciting the rule as opposed to the exceptions - the exceptions being enforcement of the company holding onto the ideas. The basic issue is - if the company has no interest in it, then they typically will not pursue it regardless of what it is - it's just not worth it to them so long as you are not disrupting their market which tends not to be the case.
Even with Non-Compete Clauses, companies tend to only try to enforce them when its with a direct competitor and a position that would have a very big impact on the company the employee left from - otherwise again, it's not worth it to pursue it. So for example, Microsoft has complained to high heaven about Google poaching some of their employees - but they're direct competitors in those areas.
So really when it comes down to it, it doesn't normally make sense for a company to try to enforce either a non-compete or an ownership clause with their former employees. So it is more the norm that such things would not be enforced than that that are.
Of course, it'll be hard to really prove either way - such things probably settle long before getting to court in 99% of the cases where they are enforced - so you'd never hear about it, and you won't likely be able to find much in the way of surveys on actual enforcement - you probably will on whether people think either is a good idea or useful or not - as they probably settle with terms that neither can talk about in the future, or its simply satisfy the non-compete through holder positions (e.g. someone who specializes in waveform analysis may have to spend a few years looking at bacteria to satisfy the non-compete before being able to get back to their specialty; or someone who has a management position in hard drives might have to manage keyboards until the non-compete is up; or similar scenarios).