Code is one of those things where you can see the ego of the author but just because women have subtler ego's than men doesn't mean they won't get into a pissing contest about who is a better coder - but that's an attribute of experience not gender. Well commented, fast, compact, elegant, logical, efficient code that meets business goals is better than code that isn't, how is this a gender issue.
They require programmers to include a detailed set of comments before each block of code explaining what the piece of code does and why
So they've introduced coding standards, how is this revolutionary? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask "How many women enjoy programming compared to men?" or "Does the lifestyle aspects of computer programming make it easier for women to have families and participate in the workforce?".
There's a big need to fix testosterone-fueled code at Ingres because only about 20% of the engineers are women
Saying code is "testosterone-fueled" is like saying emotion is logical, the language semantics either allow the behavior or they do not. I don't think computer languages care whether a man or a woman is coding and I don't remember any organisation saying that it would change it's programmatic standards because a certain group of people had difficulties understanding the code base. Your here now, learn the code base, get over it.
McGrattan boasts that 70% to 80% of the time, she can look at a chunk of computer code and tell if it was written by a man or a woman at Ingress.
All it really says is the code base at Ingress is convoluted and lacks discipline, and that their business processes to introduce new programmers to the code base is inadequate. Trying to disguise what is obviously a cultural issue at Ingress as a man VS woman issue is clearly devisive and belittles the art and science of computer programming for men AND women.
I have worked with many women programmers and I'm happy to learn from any man or woman coder that has something to offer. Coding is for people who enjoy the artful language of logic that computer languages allow us to express like poetry, and we don't judge poetry by the gender of the writer.
I use high end cables in my audio studio, I braid entire looms as having a neat set of cables carefully organised at right angles to power minimises induced noise. Unless these cables are going to minimise packet re-transmissions to -1 and effectively double my cpu capacity by using them about the only thing I could see them being useful for is keeping noise OUT of audio and video equipment.
I don't have ethernet cable anywhere near my audio cables for precisely this reason - because the potential for introducing digital signal noise into my analogue audio cables.
Why not build a lvm of usb drives. Put them directly into drive cages and use ide/sata to usb converter's. You could use a fairly modest machine, preferably with a few pci slots and load those slots up with usb cards to give you additional bandwidth to usb.
Outside the case use the drive cages and pc power supplies solder additional connectors from dead power supplies to load additional drives onto the good power supplies. You could also use firewire, but usb is cheaper.
I'd do it under linux and use the hdparm command to tune the spin down timer on the drives to conserve power, accessing the drives *should* spin them back up.
It might be a good way to back things up as it won't be fast.
This showed that 68 percent of office workers suffered from aches and pains, with the most common symptoms including back ache, shoulder pain and wrist/hand pain."
I know back pain in the upper back for incorrect posture. For my primary sitting area most of the time I use one of these , yes it won't help all the time but it makes a big difference.
and the "Ballmer-bot," a robot made to imitate and act like Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO and Gates' long-time business partner, who is attending Chair throwers anonymous.
"Give.me.yor.chair.bill,,GIVE.ME.YOR.CHAIR" said the robot, developed using Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio product, repeated over and over, as it headed towards Mr Gates. The robot also raised his arm, and attempted to inject Mr Gates rescuers with nano-probes showing how he has the ability to "throw tantrums" like a true monkey boy according to the MIT student attempting to control his movements.
"I guess we still have some bugs to work out," Mr Gates said, smiling. "That must be why we're not shipping Balmer-bots yet."
Which of the software tools Google uses are Open Source?
After reading about google's infrastructure in the past it's not just a matter of tools but OSS Operating System collections, probably an internal google distribution, they might use Apache or even a kernel based httpd, and their software authoring tools are eclipse or ant as they seem to be a big fan of Java.
They start with open source, but everything they add and change to make it scale, is kept inhouse.
This is a comment about how Google uses Open Source Software, not a comment about Open Source Software. My point is that Open Source provides building blocks upon which you can build. There is nothing in the GPL that says you can't keep parts of the code you develop in house.
Google does several things to promote open source, but releasing their own software as open source is not one of them.
Agreed, see above.
I fail to see what the case of Google proves about open source.
That you can build a solid business infrastructure on it, you don't think they paid for several hundreds of thousands of Third party proprietary vendor licenses for their operating systems do you? And if you can make a case for infrastructure savings at the operating systems level then you can make the same case at other levels. I doubt those lessons were lost on googles accountants.
Open Source as a business model scales very well, especially if your technology is so tightly integrated with your business goals. No matter how small you start out your business is never going to be limited by an Open Source platform because by the time your big enough to have those problems no one, except yourself, is going to be able to help you anyway.
People who do OSS *donate* the product of their time and for high quality code, that is not free.
There is also one other factor. As OSS is an emerging business model the creation of Open Source Software could be seen as an input cost to the setup of a new business, and while its a risk, betting on your own business increases your chance of success analogous to compound interest.
Many business people work for their businesses and put in extra effort because that time is an investment whose immediate value cannot be quantified, having a business model that allows your customer base to make contributions that increase *their* value of *your* product is a very powerful advantage over the proprietary model that increases until the product is fully developed. The risk to the author is they have to develop the software to a point where it is attractive to other businesses who are willing to pay for services based on that software. However this also engenders the types of long term relationships that business likes and allows upfront investments into the software to be made over time reducing the risk of the author to the time spent on creating the software in the first place.
It's not lost on business that Open source as a business model allows them to co-operate with their competitors with no loss of the domain knowledge that makes their business unique. Thats the truth of Open Source as a business model AFTER you realise the cost benefit offered by actually owning your IT infrastructure rather than "renting" it until the next release of your vendors operating system.
It's not altruistic reasons that drive HP, IBM, SUN, Oracle, Novell and Red Hat, they all know this and that's why they are investing in the Open Source model, they realise that significant market share and profitability is to be gained from Microsoft and are positioning themselves to take advantage of those growth opportunities. The longer Microsoft hold out the more market share they stand to loose.
If Windows 7 was based on linux Microsoft could actually focus on delivery of the features it *will* have and deliver them. If Microsoft made Wine work the way it could work that would resolve backward compatibility with older versions of windows. Sure sure it's not going to happen but it's ok to wonder what it would be like if Microsoft played with all the other kids in the sand pit.
Using edlin made using vi a luxury. The compressed file system that came later was kinda useful if you had enough cpu time.
Many an accounting system was run and flight stimulator on a 16Mhz 8086 seemed blindingly fast. When the slash (/) became a slosh (\) and it was probably a good thing(tm) because sloshdot just wouldn't sound right, would it?
But the attitude of Microsoft has always seemed the same - they just don't want to play with the other kids in the sandbox, so perhaps there is still room for high points.
In an article of less that one page I counted the word 'will' used 5 times. Should there be a maxim for how many times the word 'will' will appear in a product announcement from M$?
I mean will alone will not make these will's happen, will it.
Or even better, instead of having massive plants with a huge footprint make use of smaller pup nuclear reactors - about the size used in a naval ship. One of those could be placed where the power substations are now and pick up the slack that the solar panels can't fulfill. They wouldn't present any real contamination danger as once their fuel was spent after 30 years or so you truck out the entire unit and refurbish (i.e. refuel) it under controlled conditions in a remote area - while in service the internals of the thing aren't opened up.
Wouldn't it be better to you a more direct method of energy transfer by processing domestic waste products into energy. It's my understanding that this is already underway in London, an example of where things can be done at an urban level. Some of the things already underway is recovery of waste heat, domestic waste and other micro-generation projects at an urban level. And more proposals are underway.
Now effective solar panels and batteries to go with them would allow us to move to a more decentralized model.
Why can't we just go ahead and do that now? It would have the same effect as bringing not only the energy closer to the consumer but the processes, whilst reducing the pressure on existing centralised infrastructure because when you think about it, generally, to heat our homes we convert heat to motion to electricity over wires to our homes and back into heat again. If our houses already produce a surplus of heat why can't we use something like water to move that heat around on a street or urban level to generate electricity locally?
Why don't we just use our homes to munch up our waste products and convert them to gas to run fuel cells that make electricity or process the at an urban level for gasses and pass that waste product further - for example why can't we use sewage water with a lot of nutrients to soak up carbon from our underground freeways or power stations with algae and produce bio-diesel. Given that the process would have inefficiencies, but who cares - they were waste products anyway, and after the inefficiencies you rightly point out in the grid anyway how much energy do we throw away after we have used it?
Resorting to baseless accusations and the ad hom fallacy is hardly conducive to the discussion.
Your the one debating as A.C which lends scope to that very behavior so you can hardly blame me for pointing it out.
They aren't "waste."
I didn't refer to them as waste thats why I used brackets (or waste), to me actinides have more manageable half lives than transuranics even if they are significantly more radioactive. You said "The "waste" of breeder reactors consists of relatively harmless elements (like lead) and radioactive substances with short half lives that within days decay into relatively harmless elements." which misrepresents that fissile ash MOSTLY contains highly radioactive elements with half lives beyond 500 years and that the mass of that fissile ash is less than one percent of mass of the fuel core.
I bring up plutonium because people complain that constructing breeders will produce it,
Exponentially, thats the little bit you leave out though. And without a proper, geologically stable repository it is completely inappropriate to consider the constructions of ANY TYPE of reactor. Want to advocate for Nuclear power then advocate a storage facility and appropriate support infrastructure to deal with an elements that are toxic into the 100's of thousands years. Be responsible for and handle it in our generation, not someone else's.
You're missing the point.
No, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. You may be referring to an IFR type reactor or some other breeder that has a isotope burn rate of greater than.3% of the mass of the fuel core, but you don't. I reiterate that material sciences have not progressed to the stage where we can produce a safe nuclear reactor preferably that can convert transuranics to actinides at around 20% of the mass of the fuel core with a reactor lifespan much longer than 40 years. Yet you ignore this argument because it attacks your belief that nuclear power is viable. And I haven't even got into a discussion about factoring in the enegy expenditure related to decommissioning the reactor yet.
Did you even read what I wrote? I said plutonium from decommissioned bombs.....If you don't want to do that then what do you propose to do with it?
Yes I read it, I know what you are getting at but you're ignoring the fact that over 90% of reactors are once through cycle and do not recognise that a reactor has a life span of roughly forty years before embrittlement of the operational components present a logistical nightmare for disposal AND that these dead reactors have things like cobalt 55 and Iron 90 and other isotopes we haven't even identified, why do you think it's called CRUD.
Further you ignore the fact that all reactors leak, and venting is approved by the NRC. Those radioactive elements find their way into the foodchain concentrating the further up they go (bio-accumulate is the term) until the reach organisms like us.
You can also throw in the fact that "radioactive" and "dangerous" are not synonyms.
Both are scales that start at "not very" and end in "fatal".
You mean like this [hinduonnet.com]?
Specifically I said planned for construction for commercial power generation NOT a prototype, but I'll go with it. India has a litany of failed breeder projects and a horrendous safety issues. The reactor you link to is a producer of Pu239 with absolutely no reference to mixing Pu240, and converts U238 to more Pu239. Having that much radioactive sodium in an area that has already been flooded by a tsunami, especially as the reactor ages, corrodes and embrittles seems like an accident waiting to happen. The overwhelming irony is you talk about bombs and then refer to a country making reactor projects producing Pu239 that haven't sig
Okay, now that you've explained the english language for the rest of us dorks, maybe you could add another lesson and tell us what a geek is. Inquiring minds (a.k.a. geeks) want to know.
Nerds do IT for money, Geeks do IT for fun. All Nerds and Geeks have a degree of Dorky-ness, Geeks know it and Nerds don't. Nerds generally get paid more than Geeks who get laid more often.
yes! this is what i try to explain to people! i consider myself a geek. i know about star wars, work with computers, read about science and hang out here. but im also a dj, have plenty of friends and have touched boobs! irl! (in case you guys are wondering, they feel like firm pizza dough)
Amen brother, and although I can be somewhat absentminded I love being a geek and was lucky enough to end up with a really hot, fit girlfriend, with a brain that cooks cleans and likes to have sex with me three to four times a week.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe is a good time to start strengthening the NNPT . Sure not AS effective against asymmetrical threats - but definitely a good first step.
They require programmers to include a detailed set of comments before each block of code explaining what the piece of code does and why
So they've introduced coding standards, how is this revolutionary? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask "How many women enjoy programming compared to men?" or "Does the lifestyle aspects of computer programming make it easier for women to have families and participate in the workforce?".
There's a big need to fix testosterone-fueled code at Ingres because only about 20% of the engineers are women
Saying code is "testosterone-fueled" is like saying emotion is logical, the language semantics either allow the behavior or they do not. I don't think computer languages care whether a man or a woman is coding and I don't remember any organisation saying that it would change it's programmatic standards because a certain group of people had difficulties understanding the code base. Your here now, learn the code base, get over it.
McGrattan boasts that 70% to 80% of the time, she can look at a chunk of computer code and tell if it was written by a man or a woman at Ingress.
All it really says is the code base at Ingress is convoluted and lacks discipline, and that their business processes to introduce new programmers to the code base is inadequate. Trying to disguise what is obviously a cultural issue at Ingress as a man VS woman issue is clearly devisive and belittles the art and science of computer programming for men AND women.
I have worked with many women programmers and I'm happy to learn from any man or woman coder that has something to offer. Coding is for people who enjoy the artful language of logic that computer languages allow us to express like poetry, and we don't judge poetry by the gender of the writer.
I don't have ethernet cable anywhere near my audio cables for precisely this reason - because the potential for introducing digital signal noise into my analogue audio cables.
Outside the case use the drive cages and pc power supplies solder additional connectors from dead power supplies to load additional drives onto the good power supplies. You could also use firewire, but usb is cheaper.
I'd do it under linux and use the hdparm command to tune the spin down timer on the drives to conserve power, accessing the drives *should* spin them back up.
It might be a good way to back things up as it won't be fast.
geeks to be cool with jocks
gamers to be cool with deodorant
and phb's to just be cool
kewl!
Just cool it,,, ok.
The left brain doesn't know what the right brain is doing at Microsoft.
"Give.me.yor.chair.bill,,GIVE.ME.YOR.CHAIR" said the robot, developed using Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio product, repeated over and over, as it headed towards Mr Gates. The robot also raised his arm, and attempted to inject Mr Gates rescuers with nano-probes showing how he has the ability to "throw tantrums" like a true monkey boy according to the MIT student attempting to control his movements.
"I guess we still have some bugs to work out," Mr Gates said, smiling. "That must be why we're not shipping Balmer-bots yet."
Many business people work for their businesses and put in extra effort because that time is an investment whose immediate value cannot be quantified, having a business model that allows your customer base to make contributions that increase *their* value of *your* product is a very powerful advantage over the proprietary model that increases until the product is fully developed. The risk to the author is they have to develop the software to a point where it is attractive to other businesses who are willing to pay for services based on that software. However this also engenders the types of long term relationships that business likes and allows upfront investments into the software to be made over time reducing the risk of the author to the time spent on creating the software in the first place.
It's not lost on business that Open source as a business model allows them to co-operate with their competitors with no loss of the domain knowledge that makes their business unique. Thats the truth of Open Source as a business model AFTER you realise the cost benefit offered by actually owning your IT infrastructure rather than "renting" it until the next release of your vendors operating system.
It's not altruistic reasons that drive HP, IBM, SUN, Oracle, Novell and Red Hat, they all know this and that's why they are investing in the Open Source model, they realise that significant market share and profitability is to be gained from Microsoft and are positioning themselves to take advantage of those growth opportunities. The longer Microsoft hold out the more market share they stand to loose.
Richard Stallman and Bill Gates
siting by the fi-re
Richard Stallman and Bill gates
singing Kom-by-yaaa
Many an accounting system was run and flight stimulator on a 16Mhz 8086 seemed blindingly fast. When the slash (/) became a slosh (\) and it was probably a good thing(tm) because sloshdot just wouldn't sound right, would it?
But the attitude of Microsoft has always seemed the same - they just don't want to play with the other kids in the sandbox, so perhaps there is still room for high points.
1. Quite attractive
2. Comfortable with a screwdriver
3. is fixing a robot
Yet I haven't read a single comment complimenting her obvious geek/nerd eligibility. Fella's OPEN YOUR EYES.
I mean will alone will not make these will's happen, will it.
Space Station Toilets Piss Off
Why don't we just use our homes to munch up our waste products and convert them to gas to run fuel cells that make electricity or process the at an urban level for gasses and pass that waste product further - for example why can't we use sewage water with a lot of nutrients to soak up carbon from our underground freeways or power stations with algae and produce bio-diesel. Given that the process would have inefficiencies, but who cares - they were waste products anyway, and after the inefficiencies you rightly point out in the grid anyway how much energy do we throw away after we have used it?
Your the one debating as A.C which lends scope to that very behavior so you can hardly blame me for pointing it out.
I didn't refer to them as waste thats why I used brackets (or waste), to me actinides have more manageable half lives than transuranics even if they are significantly more radioactive. You said "The "waste" of breeder reactors consists of relatively harmless elements (like lead) and radioactive substances with short half lives that within days decay into relatively harmless elements." which misrepresents that fissile ash MOSTLY contains highly radioactive elements with half lives beyond 500 years and that the mass of that fissile ash is less than one percent of mass of the fuel core.
Exponentially, thats the little bit you leave out though. And without a proper, geologically stable repository it is completely inappropriate to consider the constructions of ANY TYPE of reactor. Want to advocate for Nuclear power then advocate a storage facility and appropriate support infrastructure to deal with an elements that are toxic into the 100's of thousands years. Be responsible for and handle it in our generation, not someone else's.
No, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. You may be referring to an IFR type reactor or some other breeder that has a isotope burn rate of greater than .3% of the mass of the fuel core, but you don't. I reiterate that material sciences have not progressed to the stage where we can produce a safe nuclear reactor preferably that can convert transuranics to actinides at around 20% of the mass of the fuel core with a reactor lifespan much longer than 40 years. Yet you ignore this argument because it attacks your belief that nuclear power is viable. And I haven't even got into a discussion about factoring in the enegy expenditure related to decommissioning the reactor yet.
Yes I read it, I know what you are getting at but you're ignoring the fact that over 90% of reactors are once through cycle and do not recognise that a reactor has a life span of roughly forty years before embrittlement of the operational components present a logistical nightmare for disposal AND that these dead reactors have things like cobalt 55 and Iron 90 and other isotopes we haven't even identified, why do you think it's called CRUD.
Further you ignore the fact that all reactors leak, and venting is approved by the NRC. Those radioactive elements find their way into the foodchain concentrating the further up they go (bio-accumulate is the term) until the reach organisms like us.
Both are scales that start at "not very" and end in "fatal".
Specifically I said planned for construction for commercial power generation NOT a prototype, but I'll go with it. India has a litany of failed breeder projects and a horrendous safety issues. The reactor you link to is a producer of Pu239 with absolutely no reference to mixing Pu240, and converts U238 to more Pu239. Having that much radioactive sodium in an area that has already been flooded by a tsunami, especially as the reactor ages, corrodes and embrittles seems like an accident waiting to happen. The overwhelming irony is you talk about bombs and then refer to a country making reactor projects producing Pu239 that haven't sig
And so balance was brought to the Force.
Now if only I could remember where I live...
You know I just had to ask!!! :-)