No, but they had the resources of the US government and their academic institution to back them up. Chip fabrication is not cheap, therefore it really is difficult to get into the chip design field.
On the contrary, I made an advanced chip fab in my kitchen using only twine, sticks, matches and an old pair of reading glasses. Of course I had an outside contractor (MacGuyver) help me.
You sarcastic comment only holds if you believe that the only measure of achievement is money. Personaly I don't believe real achievement can be measured in money.
I had to make that sarcastic comment. It was there for the taking and sounded funny.
But I agree with you that money is not the ultimate measure of success.
"Just think what Ms. Ellsworth could have achieved with a proper education. "
How do you know she doesn't have a proper education? Who says that learning on your own isn't proper? Maybe Bill Gates should have stayed in school and got a degree. He could have been rich, I tell you!
"She is NOT a self-taught CHIP DESIGNER. She is a self-taught FPGA programmer. There is a world of difference, the former is impossible, the latter is trivial."
Impossible? What about the guys who invented the first chips? Did they go to some class that taught how to build chips which will be invented in the future?
You can buy the same books that they have at schools. You can learn the same things on your own that you'd learn in schools. Some people (such as myself) are tinkerers, and we learn better by experimenting on our own than we do sitting in a classroom.
I find it funny that I've also heard people saying you need to go to school to be a programmer or work in the computer industry. Most of us geeks know that's also false.
As for "the real world," 99% of the design studios I've worked at are Mac-based, so all that learning of BASIC, DOS and dBase back in high school was a waste of time, wasn't it?;)
And what's the percentage of people who work in design houses compared to people who use Windows PC's in the corporate workplace? The VAST majority of computers used in the workplace are Microsoft based, like it or not. The Mac crowd is merely a very vocal minority. But no matter how loud they yell, it doesn't increase their platform's market share.
The review made no sense,and shows no concept of what is needed in an average k-12 classroom. To add, and eMac is not the consumer or commerical model. It is the K-12 educational model.
My school had Macs, which we learned on, and later on I realized that it was a very bad idea. We learned on Macs and then got out into the "real world" where Mac skills were nearly useless. 95% of the market was IBM-compatibles. If you wanted to get a job where they called for "PC skills", they didn't mean knowing how to use a Mac. They meant knowing how to use Dos and Windows 3.1
If you were to teach something, would you teach something that 95% of people could use, or teach something that only 5% of people could use?
I'm not saying that Macs are bad, but we must face reality and admit that they're only a tiny percentage of the market, and when teaching subject matter that would help the majority of kids in school, learning on IBM compatibles would have been the smarter choice that helped more people in all practicality.
Back when the PowerMac g5 was released their "Glowing" afermation of the G5s power was saying it was just as good as the top of he line PC.
That sounds about right. While the G5 was a huge leap in performance for Mac fans and generated loads of hype in the Mac community, it only matched performance that PC fans have been used to. In fact, when the G5 came out, it matched the speed of the fastest Intel systems but still came short of the top of the line AMD chips.
I remember when the G5 benchmarks came out, Mac fans enthusiastically pointed to benchmarks on Apple's website. They were not objective in the least bit. They compared optimized Altivec code running on the G5 with non-optimized code running on the Intel machines. Also the Intel system had less memory than the fully configured Mac. It was pretty sad, actually, that a respected company such as Apple would benchmark using such a slanted configuration.
While I'm hightly curious and even more concerned, it's None Of Our Damn Business. I can think of nothing more private.
If he wanted it to be private, he wouldn't have posted extremely detailed descriptions of the problems he was having, numerous times, on a very popular public website for the whole world to read. It is obvious that he didn't want details of his health problem to be private. That's why he told everyone, and that's why he kept us updated and told us that he's OK now.
If I really wanted to make the shuttle go boom, why would I honestly tell you that and get myself into more trouble?
How the hell is he going to blow up the Shuttle by hacking one of their systems? Statements like the one you just made are absolutely ridiculous. If NASA somehow set up their launch system so that you could blow up their rockets from the Internet, that would be ultra stupid and border on criminal negligence.
It seems that everyone wants to be the first to make doom and gloom "the sky is falling" type statements.
Also, if you've ever followed lawsuits, and I'm sure you have, you'd know that over-inflating damage estimates is the norm.
Someone needs to re-create the Graf Zeppelin. Those must have been an awesome sight. 850 feet of aircraft above you...
Only this time, use a flame-resistant fabric on the outside and use helium instead of hydrogen. I bet with modern composites to lighten the airframe, we could build one 1,000 feet long.
I see this myth repeated often. People say that cell phones don't work in airplanes for all kinds of technical reasons.
But if you remember on 9/11, there were a whole bunch of cell phone calls that got through just fine. You don't hear of cell phone calls working on airplanes that often because as current law has it, they aren't allowed. But when people broke the rules in an emergency, they worked just fine.
I keep hearing all this feel-good nonsense pushed by companies trying to sell these gadgets.
They keep saying that this new technology will make drivers safer. Yet in reality when this stuff comes to the market, people just find a way to use this stuff that makes them WORSE drivers!
Remember when LCD screens were going to help people navigate? Now they end up missing their turn because they're busy watching TV on the screen that's supposed to be giving them directions.
Remember when cell phones would make travelling safer because you could call a tow truck from the side of the road? Now people just chat away on their phone while driving and they don't pay attention to the road. After they ram their 5,000 lb SUV into a wall they'll need the tow truck for sure, now.
How about we remove all these distractions and make people actually DRIVE their car! While these gadgets have *potential* good uses, in reality nothing is more dangerous than a person not paying attention to what they're doing.
Keep real safety features on a car and do away with the things that make them more dangerous. No watching TV while you're driving, no playing video games, no talking on the phone. Drive.
But there is no point in doing it as a rah-rah feel-good exercise. Honest scientific, commercial, and military goals should be set first, and only in the light of these goals should we see if it makes sense to pursue these manned missions.
Feel-good missions that impress the public are very important since it is the public that is paying for everything. Making the public lose interest in the space program, no matter how much hard science you accomplish, would be a very bad move for NASA. The public would quickly grow tired of paying for something that no longer does anything for them and the budget would inevitably be cut. Show the people that they're getting their money's worth and they'll feel good about funding the space program.
Surprisingly war is one of those things you can do without much money. It sounds backwards but think about it. North Korea affords to keep its military strong even though it is broke, and the US was able to swing to full wartime production and wage war even after the Great Depression of the 1930's.
Probably because in those cases, the government doesn't ask you to fight and build tanks, it tells you to.
I believe the US made a mistake in not improving greatly the GPS during the 20 years of operation. Positionning is about to become a huge market and Europ has a clear advance thanks to Galileo where the US could have been so far ahead already...
The US tends to keep all its good stuff secret. You can look at this issue another way and come to the conclusion that it is the US that has a clear advantage considering that it has 20 years of first hand experience in this field. I'm sure they've found all kinds of major and minor tidbits that can be improved upon.
While Europe's system will be good and use all the latest technology, this is still their first attempt at such a system. The US can use the latest technology also, but in addition draw from their 20 years of experience with a working system. You can alway do thing better the second time around...
Do you really think terrorists or enemy nations need to use GPS or Galileo to attack these buildings? They didn't need it to attack the WTC or the Pentagon.
Besides, there are a lot of things I don't like in the world. That doesn't give me the right to tell people that they don't have free will. Europe can put up their Galileo if they want, just like we put up GPS when we wanted.
Oh, and third parties have been accurately been able to aim missiles at the white house for the last 35 years.
These things are radioactive precisely because of their tendency to decay and in fact split themselves. They don't even split into other elements.
Incorrect.
Radioactive elements do turn into other elements. Radon is formed by the decay of other radioactive elements.
You can't turn uranium into gold, for example, even though it ought to be a straightforward process of splitting off the required number of protons from each atom (if the "we're splitting atoms" camp claims are correct).
Uranium naturally decays into lead, and you can transmute lead into gold in a particle accelerator. It has been done before.
You're not going to make any money by doing that though due to the amount of energy required.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but they had the resources of the US government and their academic institution to back them up. Chip fabrication is not cheap, therefore it really is difficult to get into the chip design field.
On the contrary, I made an advanced chip fab in my kitchen using only twine, sticks, matches and an old pair of reading glasses. Of course I had an outside contractor (MacGuyver) help me.
You sarcastic comment only holds if you believe that the only measure of achievement is money. Personaly I don't believe real achievement can be measured in money.
I had to make that sarcastic comment. It was there for the taking and sounded funny.
But I agree with you that money is not the ultimate measure of success.
"Just think what Ms. Ellsworth could have achieved with a proper education. "
How do you know she doesn't have a proper education? Who says that learning on your own isn't proper?
Maybe Bill Gates should have stayed in school and got a degree. He could have been rich, I tell you!
"She is NOT a self-taught CHIP DESIGNER. She is a self-taught FPGA programmer. There is a world of difference, the former is impossible, the latter is trivial."
Impossible? What about the guys who invented the first chips? Did they go to some class that taught how to build chips which will be invented in the future?
You can buy the same books that they have at schools. You can learn the same things on your own that you'd learn in schools. Some people (such as myself) are tinkerers, and we learn better by experimenting on our own than we do sitting in a classroom.
I find it funny that I've also heard people saying you need to go to school to be a programmer or work in the computer industry. Most of us geeks know that's also false.
As for "the real world," 99% of the design studios I've worked at are Mac-based, so all that learning of BASIC, DOS and dBase back in high school was a waste of time, wasn't it? ;)
And what's the percentage of people who work in design houses compared to people who use Windows PC's in the corporate workplace? The VAST majority of computers used in the workplace are Microsoft based, like it or not. The Mac crowd is merely a very vocal minority. But no matter how loud they yell, it doesn't increase their platform's market share.
The review made no sense,and shows no concept of what is needed in an average k-12 classroom. To add, and eMac is not the consumer or commerical model. It is the K-12 educational model.
My school had Macs, which we learned on, and later on I realized that it was a very bad idea. We learned on Macs and then got out into the "real world" where Mac skills were nearly useless. 95% of the market was IBM-compatibles. If you wanted to get a job where they called for "PC skills", they didn't mean knowing how to use a Mac. They meant knowing how to use Dos and Windows 3.1
If you were to teach something, would you teach something that 95% of people could use, or teach something that only 5% of people could use?
I'm not saying that Macs are bad, but we must face reality and admit that they're only a tiny percentage of the market, and when teaching subject matter that would help the majority of kids in school, learning on IBM compatibles would have been the smarter choice that helped more people in all practicality.
Back when the PowerMac g5 was released their "Glowing" afermation of the G5s power was saying it was just as good as the top of he line PC.
That sounds about right. While the G5 was a huge leap in performance for Mac fans and generated loads of hype in the Mac community, it only matched performance that PC fans have been used to. In fact, when the G5 came out, it matched the speed of the fastest Intel systems but still came short of the top of the line AMD chips.
I remember when the G5 benchmarks came out, Mac fans enthusiastically pointed to benchmarks on Apple's website. They were not objective in the least bit. They compared optimized Altivec code running on the G5 with non-optimized code running on the Intel machines. Also the Intel system had less memory than the fully configured Mac. It was pretty sad, actually, that a respected company such as Apple would benchmark using such a slanted configuration.
While I'm hightly curious and even more concerned, it's None Of Our Damn Business. I can think of nothing more private.
If he wanted it to be private, he wouldn't have posted extremely detailed descriptions of the problems he was having, numerous times, on a very popular public website for the whole world to read. It is obvious that he didn't want details of his health problem to be private. That's why he told everyone, and that's why he kept us updated and told us that he's OK now.
If I really wanted to make the shuttle go boom, why would I honestly tell you that and get myself into more trouble?
How the hell is he going to blow up the Shuttle by hacking one of their systems? Statements like the one you just made are absolutely ridiculous. If NASA somehow set up their launch system so that you could blow up their rockets from the Internet, that would be ultra stupid and border on criminal negligence.
It seems that everyone wants to be the first to make doom and gloom "the sky is falling" type statements.
Also, if you've ever followed lawsuits, and I'm sure you have, you'd know that over-inflating damage estimates is the norm.
I don't know about you, but I'm afraid of that capybara in that picture.
The Seattle Space Needle uses a one-horsepower motor to rotate its restaraunt once per hour. It can be done easily.
I'm sure with modern technology, we could design a much more powerful motor that would spin the restaurant at 15,000 rpm.
I had one. It had no triangle setup. Nvidia was the first to come out with on-board triangle setup.
Someone needs to re-create the Graf Zeppelin. Those must have been an awesome sight. 850 feet of aircraft above you...
Only this time, use a flame-resistant fabric on the outside and use helium instead of hydrogen. I bet with modern composites to lighten the airframe, we could build one 1,000 feet long.
I see this myth repeated often. People say that cell phones don't work in airplanes for all kinds of technical reasons.
But if you remember on 9/11, there were a whole bunch of cell phone calls that got through just fine. You don't hear of cell phone calls working on airplanes that often because as current law has it, they aren't allowed. But when people broke the rules in an emergency, they worked just fine.
I keep hearing all this feel-good nonsense pushed by companies trying to sell these gadgets.
They keep saying that this new technology will make drivers safer. Yet in reality when this stuff comes to the market, people just find a way to use this stuff that makes them WORSE drivers!
Remember when LCD screens were going to help people navigate? Now they end up missing their turn because they're busy watching TV on the screen that's supposed to be giving them directions.
Remember when cell phones would make travelling safer because you could call a tow truck from the side of the road? Now people just chat away on their phone while driving and they don't pay attention to the road. After they ram their 5,000 lb SUV into a wall they'll need the tow truck for sure, now.
How about we remove all these distractions and make people actually DRIVE their car! While these gadgets have *potential* good uses, in reality nothing is more dangerous than a person not paying attention to what they're doing.
Keep real safety features on a car and do away with the things that make them more dangerous. No watching TV while you're driving, no playing video games, no talking on the phone. Drive.
It's Maximillian from The Black Hole!
http://www.neweyestudio.com/ebayE/ebe376.jpg
"Time to resurect Tecmo Bowl!" -Ingolfke
That game ruled. Vote to FAQ.
with a pair of binoculars. Meteors zip across the sky and are gone in a flash. Most only last a split second.
But there is no point in doing it as a rah-rah feel-good exercise. Honest scientific, commercial, and military goals should be set first, and only in the light of these goals should we see if it makes sense to pursue these manned missions.
Feel-good missions that impress the public are very important since it is the public that is paying for everything. Making the public lose interest in the space program, no matter how much hard science you accomplish, would be a very bad move for NASA. The public would quickly grow tired of paying for something that no longer does anything for them and the budget would inevitably be cut. Show the people that they're getting their money's worth and they'll feel good about funding the space program.
Public support is crucial for NASA.
What do we do to outdo China on the moon?
Sending a man to the Moon back in a 1969 would be my guess.
Surprisingly war is one of those things you can do without much money. It sounds backwards but think about it. North Korea affords to keep its military strong even though it is broke, and the US was able to swing to full wartime production and wage war even after the Great Depression of the 1930's.
Probably because in those cases, the government doesn't ask you to fight and build tanks, it tells you to.
Going to war with the US is still a bad idea.
I believe the US made a mistake in not improving greatly the GPS during the 20 years of operation. Positionning is about to become a huge market and Europ has a clear advance thanks to Galileo where the US could have been so far ahead already...
The US tends to keep all its good stuff secret. You can look at this issue another way and come to the conclusion that it is the US that has a clear advantage considering that it has 20 years of first hand experience in this field. I'm sure they've found all kinds of major and minor tidbits that can be improved upon.
While Europe's system will be good and use all the latest technology, this is still their first attempt at such a system. The US can use the latest technology also, but in addition draw from their 20 years of experience with a working system. You can alway do thing better the second time around...
"To make things clear, no we don't hate Americans. We hate the way the American government is treating us"
Me too, and I live in the US!
Do you really think terrorists or enemy nations need to use GPS or Galileo to attack these buildings? They didn't need it to attack the WTC or the Pentagon. Besides, there are a lot of things I don't like in the world. That doesn't give me the right to tell people that they don't have free will. Europe can put up their Galileo if they want, just like we put up GPS when we wanted. Oh, and third parties have been accurately been able to aim missiles at the white house for the last 35 years.
These things are radioactive precisely because of their tendency to decay and in fact split themselves. They don't even split into other elements.
Incorrect.
Radioactive elements do turn into other elements. Radon is formed by the decay of other radioactive elements.
You can't turn uranium into gold, for example, even though it ought to be a straightforward process of splitting off the required number of protons from each atom (if the "we're splitting atoms" camp claims are correct).
Uranium naturally decays into lead, and you can transmute lead into gold in a particle accelerator. It has been done before.
You're not going to make any money by doing that though due to the amount of energy required.