Even though the Cox box has the ability to record two channels at once, I prefer my Tivo.
We have a Philips DSR6000 DirecTV Tivo receiver and it records two channels at once when connected to a dual channel dish. It also has a built in multiplexor which allows another DirecTV unit display one channel while the TiVo displays/records another.
The only thing it lacks (our unit, at least) is a second video output which would let us use PIP (picture-in-picture) capability of our TV; it has multiple connectors (coax, s-video, component) but only outputs one signal.
The Russians got it right with their shuttle - instead of a big main engine on the shuttle, have much more payload space in the orbiter, and launch the thing with a big-ass conventional rocket. Shame the Russians couldn't afford to run their shuttle.
Well, no, the Russians did not get it right.
Their first -- and therefor arguably their last -- mistake was to build a shuttle system that even resembled the US Shuttle which is exactly what they did.
Why? There is essentially no good reason to build a large multipurpose winged reusable orbiter. In particular:
* A reusable orbiter has no business hauling cargo. It just forces the orbiter to be larger and therefor heavier and therefor able to carry less cargo. Carrying passengers and small load of equipment would be OK... sorta -- and that is what NASA wanted to do originally.
* While debate still rages, wings on a reusable space craft are a Bad Idea®; they're heavy, don't help the spacecraft get into orbit, are useless in orbit, and ultimately drastically reduce payload. Alternatives are good ol' ballistic capsules (Soyuz, Apollo, etc) and parachutes or powered vertical landing like you see in old sci-fi movies. Check out the DC-X.
The closest anybody could have gotten to getting it right, would have been to develop reusable boosters; those are the things that the Russian design threw away! The advantage of putting the engines on the US Shuttle is that those expensive engines live to fly again and again. The rest of the US Shuttle stack is largely propellant tanks which are relatively cheap.
Ultimately, there is no "right" way to design, build, and operate and affordable rocket launcher that can provide CATS (Cheap Access To Space). If anyone is interested in actually learning more, they should check out the usenet newsgroup sci.space.tech.
I'm surprised that with a $1.5 billion budget they couldn't find a better way to get people into space. Rockets don't seem like the "affordable" answer to me. Maybe a space elevator, or maybe some new technology that nobody's invented yet....but big rockets? They seem so dated...
Oy! Where to start?
1. The $1.5 billion is how much Musk made from his sale of PayPal to Ebay, NOT RocketX's development budget.
2. Rockets are the best and only way to get people -- or anything else -- to space and will be for the foreseeable future. Consider that...
3. The space elevator concept is very cool but the materials required to build one do not exist. So you could say a "way" has been found but it's currently impossible to build. The materials could be developed in the not too distant future, say, 10-25 years, but they are still at the basic research phase. Cables made using bucky tubes hold promise but still hasn't been demonstrated.
4. SpaceX is not developing "big" rockets. A "big" rocket is something like the Saturn V or the Energia which can lift about 120 tons to LEO (Low Earth Orbit) whereas SpaceX's Falcon I will lift about one ton to LEO and the Falcon V about 5 tons.
5. Rockets are incredibly efficient in terms getting the most power (work? I ain't no engineer) from chemical fuels.
And ultimately,
6. There is nothing intrinsically unaffordable about rockets. You are assuming that "rockets" are necessarily expendable since virtually all current space launcher rockets are expendables. A well designed reusable rocket would be extremely "affordable" to operate but, alas, very tricky and expensive to design and develop. Note that the Space Shuttle is not well designed, not truly reusable, and most certainly not affordable to operate on a commercial basis.
In conclusion, there is little wonder that you are surprised since you know not of what you speak.
This season was much improved, and much closer to fans' original expectations. I'm afraid Sci-Fi's decision to move Stargate an hour earlier against it pretty much cemented the cancellation, though.
Where to start? I'll pass on some comments made about Rick Berman by David Gerrold, writer of "The Trouble with Tribbles", at a sci-fi club meeting talk. But first, you have to pay for the soup.:-j
If the last season of Enterprise made me think "let this series end soon", this season makes me want to scream "it's too late!" Let's start with...
Fans' original expectations . Obviously I can't speak for all fans but being one of the apparently few on/. who actually watched episodes of the original Star Trek (TOS) when they originally aired (not a lot, since it was on past my bedtime, but that's of historical interest), I expect Star Trek at the least (a) be thought provoking and (b) to entertain me.
Apparently what passes for for "entertainment" these days is a steady stream of
simple (i.e., predicable) plots,
lots of explosions,
skimpy costumes,
attractive yet forgettable & talentless guest actors,
cool special effects,
banal scripts,
and not much else.
Sure, all the Star Trek series have shared these attributes as have many other popular and (relatively speaking) high quality TV series -- this is television, after all. But with such consistency? No. Well, Voyager, perhaps.
Enterprise started out well enough. Teething problems for sure but there was some interesting character development and exploration going on from episode to episode. For the first two seasons. But even then it was obvious what was happening: the powers that be decreed that more action and adventure was needed to boost the ever important ratings. And then there was season three.
In Deep Space 9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations", members of the DS9 cast
are edited into TOS footage of "The Trouble with Tribbles" as was done in Foresst Gump and Back to the Future. I don't recall if Gerrold had any creative input for the DS9 episode, but he did visit the shoot and enjoyed meeting the cast and crew. Cool stuff. As a derived work (or whatever the technical issue) and according to Writers Guild rules, Gerrold deserved to be paid. Berman refused. After a protracted battle involving forced arbitration through the guild, Gerrold finally received his due even though it was obvious from the start that Gerrold was in the right.
Without knowing exactly what has happened through the years, my best guess is that under Berman's stewardship, the talent and spirit of the people who have made Star Trek achieve the (relative) high quality through the years has been squandard, discarded, alienated, and/or allowed to wither away.
"There's no way of telling what happened,... I'm convinced that we made a very good movie, and I'm also convinced that the movie was promoted properly."
No they didn't [decide to go for speed], they decided to go for efficiency and to take the safer gamble that airlines (and airports) didn't want a super-jumbo jet. The Sonic Cruiser never got off the drawing board. They're building the 7E7 instead.
* Boeing cancels 747X super jumbo (similar to the Airbus A380) due to lack of interest from airlines
* Boeing announces Sonic Cruiser as next major project
* Boeing cancels Sonic Cruiser project after airlines enter financial free fall post 9/11
* The more economically efficient 7E7 Dreamliner is now Boeings current development project. The 7E7 employs some technology envisioned for the Sonic Cruiser.
Therefore, at the time the 747X was canceled, Boeing did decide to go for speed. Subsequent events lead to the 7E7. It's conceivable -- likely or not -- that a Sonic Cruiser will be Boeing's next development project.
It isn't so much that Boeing wasn't nimble enough in this case, it was too jingoistic. Remember the year (2001-2003) when everybody in the US... was all anti-french, "Old Europe", and all, becasue France and Germany wouldn't back the invasion?
Boeing's decision had nothing to do with jingoism. Try hard business sense:
Designing -- and selling -- a new airliner is an expensive gamble. Boeing already has a very successful jumbo. From what I've read elsewhere, they figured why take the risk of sinking a lot of money into what might turn out to be a jumbo white elephant?
Boeing's Sonic Cruiser and Airbus's A380 are both destined for the ever expanding Pacific market with its long distance routes. Instead of a been-there-done-that follow on to the 747, Boeing decided to go for speed:
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/backgro und.html
With its huge speed advantage, the new airplane will cut travel times by approximately 20 percent, or one hour for every 3,000 miles traveled....
Environmental performance is very important... the Sonic Cruiser will be able to deliver its speed advantage with about the same fuel burn per passenger as conventional aircraft with similar seating capacity - a level of performance that was previously thought impossible.
Not only will passengers be willing to shave one or two hours off a 6-12 hour flight, but shorter flight times mean the Sonic Cruiser can make more flights in a given amount of time. Whether that offsets the A380 greater payload is matter for the number crunchers. Jingoism doesn't enter the equation.
Re:And here are the more interesting posts:
on
Apple Releases Mac Mini
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There are *no* user servicable parts in a mini Mac: you want to open it up you have to bust the case and void your warranty.That includes switching in some more memory.
Apple "does not recommend" that users upgrade the memory themselves - you're supposed to have a service provider do it if you want to add more after purchase - but doing it yourself does not void the warranty unless you damage something. A booth person told me the memory slot is easily accessible once you get the case open.
After 10+ years of not working with Apple's machines professionaly I would have expected that they would have wisened up on this particular aspect, but alas, they have not.
Yes, Apple has wised up; happened quite a while ago. This has been mentioned at a few sites (here's one: http://www.macintouch.com/mwsf2005notebook.html) but merely installing RAM (or whatever) in your Mac doesn't void your warranty -- breaking your Mac in the process does. This has been Apple's policy for over ten years.
The vast majority of product warranties, regardless of product type, only protect against defects in design or manufacturing. Manufacturers routinely discourage consumer fixes by encouraging all servicing be done by qualified technichians. Apple is hardly special.
Well now that's it's true...damn, even I might buy one!
I'm sorely tempted myself. It promises to be a wonderful machine for its intended audience. BUT, I would strongly suggest adding $125 for a base configuration:
* As usual, Apple skimps on stock RAM. Only 256MB? Add $75 at the Apple Store to bring it to a passable 512MB.
* Given the RAM configurations available at the Apple Store -- 256MB, 512MB, 1GB, each 1 DIMM -- it appears there is only one DIMM slot in the machine. However...
* if you choose to upgrade the RAM on your own, you'll pretty much want to drop in 1 GB (+/- $180 at current prices; Apple wants $425) and be done with it. Feed the stock 256MB DIMM to your dog.
* If Apple follows precedent, you can only get internal Bluetooth from the factory via special order or pre-configured retail; you can't install it later.
As for other options, they can be fleshed out with spare gear (monitor, keyboard, and rodent) or as more gear (or money) become available. But buying a fully tricked out system? Better off buying an iMac G5 or your choice.
Which is exactly what Apple wants. Well done.
The idea is obviously to try and penetrate into the mid range market; make the Mac an everymans computer. If they can do it, and if they can increase their market share,
Spot on.
they would certainly seem to have enough room to manovour and licence the Mac to clone builders again.
While they could, I still think it's unlikely. The single best way to ensure that the software works properly is to design your own hardware. Outsource the manufacturing and... that pretty much describes Apple's situation right now.
It is not now, nor is it ever likely to be in Apple's interest to follow Microsoft's business model. But that's another topic that's been rehashed to excess. In brief, Apple sells software be it Mac OS, iLife, or music in order to sell high margin hardware: Macs and iPods. Any branching out on Apple's part will be in addition to Macs and iPods.
I'm not impressed. The announcement is titled "The magic 'Six' (6GHz) has been broken". Doesn't sound like magic to me. I'm waiting for the Truly Magical® 666GHz to be broken.
But aren't bottlenecks unavoidable when any absent person's code is causing problems?
In a word, no. You may have chosen not to avoid it, but it's not necessary. If you use a team-oriented approach like Extreme Programming, all the developers own the code. If somebody is absent, work goes on. You wouldn't negligently build an app with a single point of failure. Why would you build a team that way?
Because you work in a shop with only, say, three programmers? I should have said that "bottlenecks are often unavoidable". Extreme Programing isn't always an economically practical option. It's obvious that the original poster expected to have only one SQL programmer on staff suggesting that it's not an unusual situation.
Stored procedures aren't good or bad...they just are. Passing a value judgment on whether they're good or bad is completely dependent on the situation.
And in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice.:-) It's true that every situation is different but from my perspective, sprocs (stored procedures) should be the only way that application programmers can alter a database. I'm an SQL programmer. I carry a coffee mug.
In my opinion, applications shouldn't have any more detailed knowledge of a data base structure than any other OOP language's object.
Back to the original poster:
Is it really important to shave compilation time when connection and execution times dominate?
An easily overlooked advantage of sprocs (and views) is that it allows the data base structure to be changed without changing a single line of application code. I have routinely made changes to a live database with little fuss whereas my front end associates sometimes need to do messier stuff such as (essentially, if not literally) restarting the web server. That is, front end changes are much more likely to interfere with operations than back end changes.
In addition, you either have to have a dedicated T-SQL or PL/SQL coder who then is the weak link in your coding chain,...
Weak link? After seeing some SQL code of front end people, I totally resent being referred to as a "weak link".:-) I was a dedicated T-SQL programmer and I've been out of work for nearly a year.:-( Most job requirements I come across list SQL almost as an afterthought -- as if good SQL code isn't important.
... or your pool of developers must become fluent in both your scripting language of choice as well as the SP language.
Simple. Stick with SQL as the sproc language. Well... it would be simple if all SQL sproc implementations were alike. I started working with PostgreSQL after working many years with T-SQL and I was totally amazed at PostgreSQL's shortcomings (sproc parameter definitions are downright brain damaged). After further research the vague nature of the SQL "standard" totally staggered me. Which lead to...
I have... found [using a dedicated SQL programmer] to cause bottlenecks when 'the database guy' is unavailable and learning curve problems (bugs) with new coders getting familiar with the db language.
But aren't bottlenecks unavoidable when any absent person's code is causing problems? Conversely, there are some things that can't be done without well written SQL so the problem remains that somebody on the team should be proficient in SQL.
Utlimately there is no clear-cut answer to the question since, as I alluded to, SQL implementations vary wildly. So you either make the final decision based on which SQL server you use OR choose your SQL server based on which approach you decide to use. If my inability to find a job is any indication, you (the original poster) will choose to avoid using sprocs.:-/
Apparently, in 30 years in the business, he had never run into anyone who had memorized their VIN before. He had me tell it to everyone in the shop.
Heh.
Ah. You must be one of the gentlemen in North Carolina.
Unlike telephone companies, which simply created new area codes to cope with a surge in households, cell phones and fax machines,...
Simply? Donchya just love it when a complex problem can be dismissed with that simp... er,... single word?
We're running out of area codes too.
Then there's large metro areas that have switched to 10 or even 11 digit dialing. Say you move to such a place and you take your phone with with you -- you know, the one with all your those numbers programmed into it by your wife -- and you need to add the area codes to all of them. Going the other way, some (many? most?) areas that only use 7 digit dialing and you gotta remove the area codes.
No big deal you say? Chances are it's her phone and she lost the manual. Or maybe it just seems to always happen that way.
Then there's area code splits. I'd hate to be responsible for any sizable contact database when that happens.
Good thing that phone numbers can be dealt with so simply.
:^j
OK, show of hands: how many of you know two or more VINs? Good. Now all you smart asses put your hands down. Ah. I see one hand up in... I think that's Montana... and there's three in North Carolina. OK, hands down.
Now, how many of you know three or more phone numbers?
With the Space Shuttle still grounded, the new generation of American boosters still being developed, and demand for reliable launching rockets building up around the world...
The Shuttle hasn't been in the satellite launching business since the aftermath of the Challenger disaster. The "new" generation of American boosters are variations of existing boosters so it's not like there's a supply vacuum (as it were) as the author suggests. As for demand for launchers... I'm not going to take the author's word for it due to the cyclic nature of the launch industry.
The irony of the rocket's new popularity has not been lost on the veteran space engineers of Baikonur. [NASA] is now grounded despite annual approval of budgets of close to $20 billion.
Since the only role NASA has in the launch business is as a customer, claims of "irony" are... well... ironic.
Like he said, *you* have everything *you* need, but the plethora of quite diverse and intensive applications that everyone *else* needs isn't there. Sorry, he's still right.
1. People seem to mix up the fact that just because a particular Windows application isn't available on Mac, that Mac users do without. As a rule, it's not the case.
2. What applications do the vast majority of Windows users use? Office, IE, and Outlook. Right? They are all available on Mac though there's little reason to use IE and Outlook. The one exception is Access. Is this a show stopper in the corporate and business world? Sometimes. In the home market? Rarely.
3. To the typical user -- geeks included -- the availability of more software on Windows just means there's more software they could use but don't. This is not a minor point; there's only so much software that any one person will want to use. I'd be curious to see if Windows users use more, less, or the same amount of software as Mac users.
4. While quality is often in the eye of the beholder, I for one still think that Windows software tends to be crappier than Mac software. Unfortunately, that crappiness seems to be spreading. Suffice it to say there are more ways to produce crappy software than good software and since Windows has so much more software available for it...
It's not hard being a Mac user, certainly no harder than being a Windows users since the vast majority of users have a hard time using computers at all.
Try this perspective: as a longtime Mac user, I have a hard time using Windows because I can't find much high quality software that runs on Windows --even after several years. Stands to reason, doesn't it? Considering that all the major apps -- Word, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. -- were born on the Mac platform, you'd think developers would look to the Mac sometimes for how to do things right.
Why would you put *any* unpatched box online, whatever the OS?
Because I use Mac OS. Or doesn't Mac OS qualify as "whatever"?
Or, maybe because I've set up Linux and Windows online and never got instantly infected. Or maybe because the only "infection" I got on a Windows box of mine was when some lame Outlook worm files got copied from the server. Didn't affect me because I don't use Outlook or Internet Explorer. And I sit behind a firewall or at least NAT.
And what's a "clean install" on Windows like? I don't think I've done one aside from that time when my hard drive died.
I've been using Windows for about six years and Mac about 20. I take that back about setting up Linux online; it took me a few weeks (or was it months?) to get networking up at all on my Shuttle SN42G. I obviously don't use Linux much.:-)
What do Slashdot users think are the best ways to help revitalize math and science programs in our schools, or should we stick to the old conventional methods to learning?"
Simple. Make the information relevant.
For example, instead of teaching ratios in proportion, have students scale a cookie recipe to feed the entire class. Then have them make the cookies (off the top of my head; don't whinge about lilltle kids and hot ovens). Figure batting averages in gym class. Predict the max altitude of a water rocket.
From personal experience, I didn't appreciate algebra (polynomials in particular) until I studied calculus. Up until that point it didn't help me accomplish anything than arithmetic did.
I tend to think that someone should start at the goal of the task -- say, build a model rocket and predict its performance --and work backwards. Let the students build one without instruction in such a way that they are bound fail and the only way to succeed is to actually.... learn. I know, it's been done but it's often the exception rather than the rule. When was the last time you had several labs before your first lecture? Why bother with a dry boring lecture in the first place?
I doubt programming will ever be as simple as speaking to the machine.
But the point is: why should people need to know how to program just to use a computer? Answer: they shouldn't.
In case some people haven't noticed, we're well past the time when using a computer meant programming a computer. Yet another example of how the Good Old Times weren't.
Evans approached a perfectly valid issue: learning how to use computers effectively will become increasingly important in the job market. But not only does he erroneously equate "using" with "programming", he then equates "programming" with "coding". There are millions of people who successfully program their VCRs and telephones without using any code at all. But the worst for me was when he equated Windows with logic. I almost blew a fuse.
... the future really is a machine that "thinks" in natural language and ideas, such that 'programming' will become a matter of speaking to the machine...
Indeed.
In 50 years, perhaps much less, the ability to read and write code will be as essential for professionals of every stripe as the ability to read and write a human language is today. If your children's children can't speak the language of the machines, they will have to get a manual job - if there are any left.
Dylan Evans obviously has never watched Star Trek: The Next Generation. If machines can't speak the language of children within the next 50 years, somebody won't be doing their job correctly.
Windows is such a dangerous commodity. It lulls us into the pernicious illusion that we can deal with computers without adapting to their logic.
Nor has he ever used Windows. How he can claim that Windows is logical much less than anyone should adopt what it uses for logic buggers my imagination.
... there's the huge problem of how you're supposed to store hydrogen onboard your car. I've seen several proposals, but they all have their drawbacks (fuel too heavy, tank required too heavy, too explosive, too dangerous in a crash, etc.)
Explosiveness of hydrogen gas is highly overrated; gasoline is arguably more dangerous in this regard. It is true that H2 gas's sheer bulk is a bear to overcome
... there's the problem of fuel distribution. Unless and until there's some way to hook up a fair number of gas stations with a hydrogen fuel supply...
RTFA. Think beyond the "gas station" paradigm. Assuming the onboard storage problem can be licked, it's possible to have a hydrogen converter (from hydrocarbon gas, electrolysis, etc.) in every home or cluster of homes.
... Sorry, libertarians, but the free market is going to fail here.
Even though I turn a a jaundiced eye towards economic libertarianism, there are plenty of situations where fuel cells can gain a foothold without entering the family car market, in particular, company vehicle fleets, taxis, local delivery, etc.
The set of difficulties to overcome with automotive fuel cells isn't particularly different than other technologies. Given the right combination of technology, necessity, and the ever present the bottom line -- as usual -- will determine whether it will find a niche or not.
In other words, your analysis of "the major problem" seems to be that the technology and infrastructure don't exist without offering any clear indications of how or why these problems are insurmountable. I contend that given a fuel cell stack that is economically competitive -- the point of the original article -- other obstacles won't loom quite as large. Following your reasoning, the modern automobile couldn't have become the primary means of locomotion since to someone living at the time of its introduction:
gasoline is too dangerous; it's very explosive
there's hardly any gasoline being produced
where to get the gasoline? Horses can eat grass!
there's virtually no paved roads outside of cities
And we all know that those problems were show stoppers.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
We have a Philips DSR6000 DirecTV Tivo receiver and it records two channels at once when connected to a dual channel dish. It also has a built in multiplexor which allows another DirecTV unit display one channel while the TiVo displays/records another.
The only thing it lacks (our unit, at least) is a second video output which would let us use PIP (picture-in-picture) capability of our TV; it has multiple connectors (coax, s-video, component) but only outputs one signal.
Well, no, the Russians did not get it right.
Their first -- and therefor arguably their last -- mistake was to build a shuttle system that even resembled the US Shuttle which is exactly what they did.
Why? There is essentially no good reason to build a large multipurpose winged reusable orbiter. In particular:
* A reusable orbiter has no business hauling cargo. It just forces the orbiter to be larger and therefor heavier and therefor able to carry less cargo. Carrying passengers and small load of equipment would be OK ... sorta -- and that is what NASA wanted to do originally.
* While debate still rages, wings on a reusable space craft are a Bad Idea®; they're heavy, don't help the spacecraft get into orbit, are useless in orbit, and ultimately drastically reduce payload. Alternatives are good ol' ballistic capsules (Soyuz, Apollo, etc) and parachutes or powered vertical landing like you see in old sci-fi movies. Check out the DC-X.
The closest anybody could have gotten to getting it right, would have been to develop reusable boosters; those are the things that the Russian design threw away! The advantage of putting the engines on the US Shuttle is that those expensive engines live to fly again and again. The rest of the US Shuttle stack is largely propellant tanks which are relatively cheap.
Ultimately, there is no "right" way to design, build, and operate and affordable rocket launcher that can provide CATS (Cheap Access To Space). If anyone is interested in actually learning more, they should check out the usenet newsgroup sci.space.tech.
Oy! Where to start?
1. The $1.5 billion is how much Musk made from his sale of PayPal to Ebay, NOT RocketX's development budget.
2. Rockets are the best and only way to get people -- or anything else -- to space and will be for the foreseeable future. Consider that ...
3. The space elevator concept is very cool but the materials required to build one do not exist. So you could say a "way" has been found but it's currently impossible to build. The materials could be developed in the not too distant future, say, 10-25 years, but they are still at the basic research phase. Cables made using bucky tubes hold promise but still hasn't been demonstrated.
4. SpaceX is not developing "big" rockets. A "big" rocket is something like the Saturn V or the Energia which can lift about 120 tons to LEO (Low Earth Orbit) whereas SpaceX's Falcon I will lift about one ton to LEO and the Falcon V about 5 tons.
5. Rockets are incredibly efficient in terms getting the most power (work? I ain't no engineer) from chemical fuels.
And ultimately,
6. There is nothing intrinsically unaffordable about rockets. You are assuming that "rockets" are necessarily expendable since virtually all current space launcher rockets are expendables. A well designed reusable rocket would be extremely "affordable" to operate but, alas, very tricky and expensive to design and develop. Note that the Space Shuttle is not well designed, not truly reusable, and most certainly not affordable to operate on a commercial basis.
In conclusion, there is little wonder that you are surprised since you know not of what you speak.
Where to start? I'll pass on some comments made about Rick Berman by David Gerrold, writer of "The Trouble with Tribbles", at a sci-fi club meeting talk. But first, you have to pay for the soup. :-j
If the last season of Enterprise made me think "let this series end soon", this season makes me want to scream "it's too late!" Let's start with ...
Fans' original expectations . Obviously I can't speak for all fans but being one of the apparently few on /. who actually watched episodes of the original Star Trek (TOS) when they originally aired (not a lot, since it was on past my bedtime, but that's of historical interest), I expect Star Trek at the least (a) be thought provoking and (b) to entertain me.
Apparently what passes for for "entertainment" these days is a steady stream of
simple (i.e., predicable) plots,
lots of explosions,
skimpy costumes,
attractive yet forgettable & talentless guest actors,
cool special effects,
banal scripts,
and not much else.
Sure, all the Star Trek series have shared these attributes as have many other popular and (relatively speaking) high quality TV series -- this is television, after all. But with such consistency? No. Well, Voyager, perhaps.
Enterprise started out well enough. Teething problems for sure but there was some interesting character development and exploration going on from episode to episode. For the first two seasons. But even then it was obvious what was happening: the powers that be decreed that more action and adventure was needed to boost the ever important ratings. And then there was season three.
And now for David Gerrold's comments at a sci-fi club meeting I attended in Philadelphia. He talked about how Rick "Vermin" took over Star Trek from when Gene Roddenberry stepped back prior to his death. I think the nickname speaks volumes especially when combined with other sources of information (xref: Inside Trek: My Secret Life with Star Trek Creator Gene Roddenberry http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1930 709420/qid=1106092798/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-823530 8-0104835?v=glance&s=books)
In Deep Space 9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations", members of the DS9 cast are edited into TOS footage of "The Trouble with Tribbles" as was done in Foresst Gump and Back to the Future. I don't recall if Gerrold had any creative input for the DS9 episode, but he did visit the shoot and enjoyed meeting the cast and crew. Cool stuff. As a derived work (or whatever the technical issue) and according to Writers Guild rules, Gerrold deserved to be paid. Berman refused. After a protracted battle involving forced arbitration through the guild, Gerrold finally received his due even though it was obvious from the start that Gerrold was in the right.
Without knowing exactly what has happened through the years, my best guess is that under Berman's stewardship, the talent and spirit of the people who have made Star Trek achieve the (relative) high quality through the years has been squandard, discarded, alienated, and/or allowed to wither away.
The single best example of why Berman must go is Star Trek: Nemesis. Oy, what a turkey. But in this interview http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2003- 02/04/11.30.film, Berman didn't understand why it flopped:
"There's no way of telling what happened, ... I'm convinced that we made a very good movie, and I'm also convinced that the movie was promoted properly."
Need I say more?
This web page http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/soni c_cruiser/ outlines the sequence of Boeing's decisions. Here's a quick summary:
* Boeing cancels 747X super jumbo (similar to the Airbus A380) due to lack of interest from airlines
* Boeing announces Sonic Cruiser as next major project
* Boeing cancels Sonic Cruiser project after airlines enter financial free fall post 9/11
* The more economically efficient 7E7 Dreamliner is now Boeings current development project. The 7E7 employs some technology envisioned for the Sonic Cruiser.
Therefore, at the time the 747X was canceled, Boeing did decide to go for speed. Subsequent events lead to the 7E7. It's conceivable -- likely or not -- that a Sonic Cruiser will be Boeing's next development project.
Actually worse? Not.
It isn't so much that Boeing wasn't nimble enough in this case, it was too jingoistic. Remember the year (2001-2003) when everybody in the USBoeing's decision had nothing to do with jingoism. Try hard business sense:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1250473.stm:While Airbus has received 66 orders for its 555-seat jet, no customers have ordered the 747X, which would have carried 525 passengers.
Designing -- and selling -- a new airliner is an expensive gamble. Boeing already has a very successful jumbo. From what I've read elsewhere, they figured why take the risk of sinking a lot of money into what might turn out to be a jumbo white elephant?
Boeing's Sonic Cruiser and Airbus's A380 are both destined for the ever expanding Pacific market with its long distance routes. Instead of a been-there-done-that follow on to the 747, Boeing decided to go for speed:
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/backgrWith its huge speed advantage, the new airplane will cut travel times by approximately 20 percent, or one hour for every 3,000 miles traveled.
Environmental performance is very important
Not only will passengers be willing to shave one or two hours off a 6-12 hour flight, but shorter flight times mean the Sonic Cruiser can make more flights in a given amount of time. Whether that offsets the A380 greater payload is matter for the number crunchers. Jingoism doesn't enter the equation.
This simply isn't true. I'll let Henry Norr, veteran Mac journalist at http://www.macintouch.com/mwsf2005notebook.html/, tell it like it is:
Apple "does not recommend" that users upgrade the memory themselves - you're supposed to have a service provider do it if you want to add more after purchase - but doing it yourself does not void the warranty unless you damage something. A booth person told me the memory slot is easily accessible once you get the case open.This has been Apple's policy for donkey years.
Yes, Apple has wised up; happened quite a while ago. This has been mentioned at a few sites (here's one: http://www.macintouch.com/mwsf2005notebook.html) but merely installing RAM (or whatever) in your Mac doesn't void your warranty -- breaking your Mac in the process does. This has been Apple's policy for over ten years.
The vast majority of product warranties, regardless of product type, only protect against defects in design or manufacturing. Manufacturers routinely discourage consumer fixes by encouraging all servicing be done by qualified technichians. Apple is hardly special.
I'm sorely tempted myself. It promises to be a wonderful machine for its intended audience. BUT, I would strongly suggest adding $125 for a base configuration:
* As usual, Apple skimps on stock RAM. Only 256MB? Add $75 at the Apple Store to bring it to a passable 512MB.
* Given the RAM configurations available at the Apple Store -- 256MB, 512MB, 1GB, each 1 DIMM -- it appears there is only one DIMM slot in the machine. However ...
* if you choose to upgrade the RAM on your own, you'll pretty much want to drop in 1 GB (+/- $180 at current prices; Apple wants $425) and be done with it. Feed the stock 256MB DIMM to your dog.
* If Apple follows precedent, you can only get internal Bluetooth from the factory via special order or pre-configured retail; you can't install it later.
As for other options, they can be fleshed out with spare gear (monitor, keyboard, and rodent) or as more gear (or money) become available. But buying a fully tricked out system? Better off buying an iMac G5 or your choice.
Which is exactly what Apple wants. Well done.
The idea is obviously to try and penetrate into the mid range market; make the Mac an everymans computer. If they can do it, and if they can increase their market share,Spot on.
they would certainly seem to have enough room to manovour and licence the Mac to clone builders again.While they could, I still think it's unlikely. The single best way to ensure that the software works properly is to design your own hardware. Outsource the manufacturing and ... that pretty much describes Apple's situation right now.
It is not now, nor is it ever likely to be in Apple's interest to follow Microsoft's business model. But that's another topic that's been rehashed to excess. In brief, Apple sells software be it Mac OS, iLife, or music in order to sell high margin hardware: Macs and iPods. Any branching out on Apple's part will be in addition to Macs and iPods.
I'm not impressed. The announcement is titled "The magic 'Six' (6GHz) has been broken". Doesn't sound like magic to me. I'm waiting for the Truly Magical® 666GHz to be broken.
In a word, no. You may have chosen not to avoid it, but it's not necessary. If you use a team-oriented approach like Extreme Programming, all the developers own the code. If somebody is absent, work goes on. You wouldn't negligently build an app with a single point of failure. Why would you build a team that way?
Because you work in a shop with only, say, three programmers? I should have said that "bottlenecks are often unavoidable". Extreme Programing isn't always an economically practical option. It's obvious that the original poster expected to have only one SQL programmer on staff suggesting that it's not an unusual situation.
Stored procedures aren't good or bad...they just are. Passing a value judgment on whether they're good or bad is completely dependent on the situation.
And in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. :-) It's true that every situation is different but from my perspective, sprocs (stored procedures) should be the only way that application programmers can alter a database. I'm an SQL programmer. I carry a coffee mug.
In my opinion, applications shouldn't have any more detailed knowledge of a data base structure than any other OOP language's object.
Back to the original poster:
Is it really important to shave compilation time when connection and execution times dominate?
An easily overlooked advantage of sprocs (and views) is that it allows the data base structure to be changed without changing a single line of application code. I have routinely made changes to a live database with little fuss whereas my front end associates sometimes need to do messier stuff such as (essentially, if not literally) restarting the web server. That is, front end changes are much more likely to interfere with operations than back end changes.
In addition, you either have to have a dedicated T-SQL or PL/SQL coder who then is the weak link in your coding chain, ...
Weak link? After seeing some SQL code of front end people, I totally resent being referred to as a "weak link". :-) I was a dedicated T-SQL programmer and I've been out of work for nearly a year. :-( Most job requirements I come across list SQL almost as an afterthought -- as if good SQL code isn't important.
Simple. Stick with SQL as the sproc language. Well ... it would be simple if all SQL sproc implementations were alike. I started working with PostgreSQL after working many years with T-SQL and I was totally amazed at PostgreSQL's shortcomings (sproc parameter definitions are downright brain damaged). After further research the vague nature of the SQL "standard" totally staggered me. Which lead to ...
I have ... found [using a dedicated SQL programmer] to cause bottlenecks when 'the database guy' is unavailable and learning curve problems (bugs) with new coders getting familiar with the db language.
But aren't bottlenecks unavoidable when any absent person's code is causing problems? Conversely, there are some things that can't be done without well written SQL so the problem remains that somebody on the team should be proficient in SQL.
Utlimately there is no clear-cut answer to the question since, as I alluded to, SQL implementations vary wildly. So you either make the final decision based on which SQL server you use OR choose your SQL server based on which approach you decide to use. If my inability to find a job is any indication, you (the original poster) will choose to avoid using sprocs. :-/
Apparently, in 30 years in the business, he had never run into anyone who had memorized their VIN before. He had me tell it to everyone in the shop.
Heh.
Ah. You must be one of the gentlemen in North Carolina.
:-D
Unlike telephone companies, which simply created new area codes to cope with a surge in households, cell phones and fax machines, ...
Simply? Donchya just love it when a complex problem can be dismissed with that simp... er, ... single word?
We're running out of area codes too.
Then there's large metro areas that have switched to 10 or even 11 digit dialing. Say you move to such a place and you take your phone with with you -- you know, the one with all your those numbers programmed into it by your wife -- and you need to add the area codes to all of them. Going the other way, some (many? most?) areas that only use 7 digit dialing and you gotta remove the area codes.
No big deal you say? Chances are it's her phone and she lost the manual. Or maybe it just seems to always happen that way.
Then there's area code splits. I'd hate to be responsible for any sizable contact database when that happens.
Good thing that phone numbers can be dealt with so simply.
:^j
OK, show of hands: how many of you know two or more VINs? Good. Now all you smart asses put your hands down. Ah. I see one hand up in ... I think that's Montana ... and there's three in North Carolina. OK, hands down.
Now, how many of you know three or more phone numbers?
[earth's orbit shifts slightly]
Thank you.
With the Space Shuttle still grounded, the new generation of American boosters still being developed, and demand for reliable launching rockets building up around the world ...
The Shuttle hasn't been in the satellite launching business since the aftermath of the Challenger disaster. The "new" generation of American boosters are variations of existing boosters so it's not like there's a supply vacuum (as it were) as the author suggests. As for demand for launchers ... I'm not going to take the author's word for it due to the cyclic nature of the launch industry.
The irony of the rocket's new popularity has not been lost on the veteran space engineers of Baikonur. [NASA] is now grounded despite annual approval of budgets of close to $20 billion.
Since the only role NASA has in the launch business is as a customer, claims of "irony" are ... well ... ironic.
Like he said, *you* have everything *you* need, but the plethora of quite diverse and intensive applications that everyone *else* needs isn't there. Sorry, he's still right.
1. People seem to mix up the fact that just because a particular Windows application isn't available on Mac, that Mac users do without. As a rule, it's not the case.
2. What applications do the vast majority of Windows users use? Office, IE, and Outlook. Right? They are all available on Mac though there's little reason to use IE and Outlook. The one exception is Access. Is this a show stopper in the corporate and business world? Sometimes. In the home market? Rarely.
3. To the typical user -- geeks included -- the availability of more software on Windows just means there's more software they could use but don't. This is not a minor point; there's only so much software that any one person will want to use. I'd be curious to see if Windows users use more, less, or the same amount of software as Mac users.
4. While quality is often in the eye of the beholder, I for one still think that Windows software tends to be crappier than Mac software. Unfortunately, that crappiness seems to be spreading. Suffice it to say there are more ways to produce crappy software than good software and since Windows has so much more software available for it ...
It's not hard being a Mac user, certainly no harder than being a Windows users since the vast majority of users have a hard time using computers at all.
Try this perspective: as a longtime Mac user, I have a hard time using Windows because I can't find much high quality software that runs on Windows --even after several years. Stands to reason, doesn't it? Considering that all the major apps -- Word, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. -- were born on the Mac platform, you'd think developers would look to the Mac sometimes for how to do things right.
On the one hand, I think Mr. Kurtz probably should have set up a lab in his university rather than doing it in his home.
Yup. He'd be better off if he kept guns at his home. Guns don't give you no fatal infection. :-j
Why would you put *any* unpatched box online, whatever the OS?
Because I use Mac OS. Or doesn't Mac OS qualify as "whatever"?
Or, maybe because I've set up Linux and Windows online and never got instantly infected. Or maybe because the only "infection" I got on a Windows box of mine was when some lame Outlook worm files got copied from the server. Didn't affect me because I don't use Outlook or Internet Explorer. And I sit behind a firewall or at least NAT.
And what's a "clean install" on Windows like? I don't think I've done one aside from that time when my hard drive died.
I've been using Windows for about six years and Mac about 20. I take that back about setting up Linux online; it took me a few weeks (or was it months?) to get networking up at all on my Shuttle SN42G. I obviously don't use Linux much. :-)
Simple. Make the information relevant.
For example, instead of teaching ratios in proportion, have students scale a cookie recipe to feed the entire class. Then have them make the cookies (off the top of my head; don't whinge about lilltle kids and hot ovens). Figure batting averages in gym class. Predict the max altitude of a water rocket.
From personal experience, I didn't appreciate algebra (polynomials in particular) until I studied calculus. Up until that point it didn't help me accomplish anything than arithmetic did.
I tend to think that someone should start at the goal of the task -- say, build a model rocket and predict its performance --and work backwards. Let the students build one without instruction in such a way that they are bound fail and the only way to succeed is to actually .... learn. I know, it's been done but it's often the exception rather than the rule. When was the last time you had several labs before your first lecture? Why bother with a dry boring lecture in the first place?
I doubt programming will ever be as simple as speaking to the machine.
But the point is: why should people need to know how to program just to use a computer? Answer: they shouldn't.
In case some people haven't noticed, we're well past the time when using a computer meant programming a computer. Yet another example of how the Good Old Times weren't.
Evans approached a perfectly valid issue: learning how to use computers effectively will become increasingly important in the job market. But not only does he erroneously equate "using" with "programming", he then equates "programming" with "coding". There are millions of people who successfully program their VCRs and telephones without using any code at all. But the worst for me was when he equated Windows with logic. I almost blew a fuse.
Indeed.
Dylan Evans obviously has never watched Star Trek: The Next Generation. If machines can't speak the language of children within the next 50 years, somebody won't be doing their job correctly.
Nor has he ever used Windows. How he can claim that Windows is logical much less than anyone should adopt what it uses for logic buggers my imagination.
... there's the huge problem of how you're supposed to store hydrogen onboard your car. I've seen several proposals, but they all have their drawbacks (fuel too heavy, tank required too heavy, too explosive, too dangerous in a crash, etc.)
Explosiveness of hydrogen gas is highly overrated; gasoline is arguably more dangerous in this regard. It is true that H2 gas's sheer bulk is a bear to overcome
RTFA. Think beyond the "gas station" paradigm. Assuming the onboard storage problem can be licked, it's possible to have a hydrogen converter (from hydrocarbon gas, electrolysis, etc.) in every home or cluster of homes.
Even though I turn a a jaundiced eye towards economic libertarianism, there are plenty of situations where fuel cells can gain a foothold without entering the family car market, in particular, company vehicle fleets, taxis, local delivery, etc.
The set of difficulties to overcome with automotive fuel cells isn't particularly different than other technologies. Given the right combination of technology, necessity, and the ever present the bottom line -- as usual -- will determine whether it will find a niche or not.
In other words, your analysis of "the major problem" seems to be that the technology and infrastructure don't exist without offering any clear indications of how or why these problems are insurmountable. I contend that given a fuel cell stack that is economically competitive -- the point of the original article -- other obstacles won't loom quite as large. Following your reasoning, the modern automobile couldn't have become the primary means of locomotion since to someone living at the time of its introduction:
And we all know that those problems were show stoppers. :-)
This is probably a way of hiding 'offensive' paragraphs.
Perhaps you are referring to parts like this:
Gee, I won't even own my own mailing address if I sign up. I wonder how USPS feels about this.
First off, the article misleads you into believing that there are only four or five web browsers. The truth is, there is only one--Internet Explorer.
Really? Let's find out. Everyone out there who is not using Internet Explorer, raise your mouse hand.
[Earth's orbit changes infinitesimally]
Thank you
Me too! I was hoping to hear about new LED light bulbs and they start talking about, y'know, geek stuff. What a bummer.