You're partly right. Electric cars usually rely on electricity generated through the use of fossil fuels. However:
Electric cars don't waste energy idling in traffic, and re-use much of the energy usually wasted in braking. I suspect that the efficiency gains from turbine generation vs internal combustion are pretty much chewed up by distribution and charging inefficiency, but the above puts you way ahead.
It's much easier to change the source of generated electricity to reduce pollution, than change millions of vehicles.
Electric vehicles shift the pollution from densely populated inner cities to less densely populated areas - a big win for the environment of the inner city.
However, I still don't believe that electric vehicles are likely to take off, and there are far easier ways to reduce greenhouse emissions.
In my uni they just hire a bunch of upper level undergrads to grade the assignments for intro CS classes (the ones with lots of people).
We do that too, (heck, I was marking first-year courses when I was in second year), but if you didn't set up automated testing, it would still take them far too long - the supply of undergrads with clue is finite (and doesn't seem to be growing nearly as fast as enrolments in CS subjects).
...and I've had classes YOU PICK YOUR
LANGUAGE OF CHOICE! How cool is that.
Particulrly in upper-level subjects and where the enrolment isn't too outrageous, this is quite sensible. Usually, though, we restrict it to "must compile under platform foo".
We actually had a "verify" that did this, and you're right, it's a good idea. However, it's amazing how often the private TA-only test cases depend on some part of the project spec that students interpret differently than you do.
One other general point - it's amazing how *hard* it is to write good test drivers, isn't it?
When I was a TA, many CS projects in the subjects I taught had the testing automated (Perl is a marvellous thing . ..). Testing was performed on a Solaris machine using gcc, and it was the student's responsibility to write code that worked correctly in this environment.
Of course, many students wrote their code in (insert favourite moronic Windows IDE here), and just copied the code directly across to the Solaris box, and submitted without even checking to make sure that the program compiled. Many times, the program failed to work, and the students were marked down regardless of their protests of "but it worked at home". How are we supposed to know whether it worked at home or not? In any case, a little bit of investigation usually showed that the program had a combination of bugs that gcc/glibc/Solaris trigged but DroolIDE's compiler environment didn't.
If you have an alternative policy that is even slightly practical for a class with 800-odd students, I'd sure like to hear it!
In any case, it's not going to hurt you to be exposed to a different programming environment. At worst, you'll know *why* Windows programming is as horrible as Slashdotters often regard it:)
Has anybody considered just how *cold* flying one of these devices would be? I might be persuaded to try one in an Australian summer, but winter - I don't think so.
Not to mention just how noisy the gadget would be . ..
Re:Wasn't this similar to the scam a while back?
on
Personal Helicopter
·
· Score: 2
Wasn't there a "jetpack" of sorts.
I believe a personal jetpack was built in the 1950's. If anybody admits to remembering the excreable Jive Bunny, there was footage of it in the videoclip. It worked, the problem was simply the fuel capacity was only sufficient for a few minutes of flight. IIRC one was also used in the LA Olympic closing ceremony.
Companies have been fighting to restrict access to content for a *very* long time. Back in the 1930's, apparently, radios were sold tuned exclusively to one radio station, in attempt to lock in consumers. Of course, it didn't take their buyers long to figure out that all they needed to do was replace the fixed capacitor with a potentiometer. Bingo - no more lock-in.
Consumers aren't stupid. Historically, they have rejected products that restrict their choice, and embraced products that provide freedom, and if the product doesn't provide that out of the box, it'll get modified so that it will. Sony, and the other media conglomerates, will just have to get used to that fact.
Our university already has such a person
on
Computer Historian?
·
· Score: 2
One of the academics in the CS department where I was working wrote a book about Australia's first computer, CSIRAC, which he worked on back in the 1950's.
On a more general level, I believe that "computer history" is a job for both CS people *and* historians. Professional historians have learned a few tricks over the years about understanding the past, and trying to write history without their skills leads to amateurish, sloppy work. If historians were trying to use computers for their job, should they get help from an expert or should they try and write the code themselves?
This is going to lose me karma, but moderators are being sucked in far too often...
Statments like the one above (and like the first and last sentence in the comment I'm replying to) have become far too common on Slashdot, when people express "controversial" (such as pro-MS) opinions. Almost invariably, the comment gets moderated to +4 or +5, regardless of its actual merit, as moderators bend over backwards to be "fair" to the poster and their views.
If a post is truly worthy of attention, even if it goes against the accepted wisdom around here, it will generally get moderated up - konstant, a member of the Microsoft Borg, often got +4's and +5's - and deserved them as he usually posted informative, articulate stuff.
I'd like to suggest a new moderation rule - comments containing the phrase "I'm going to lose karma for this" or similar stuff, regardless of their other merits, should be moderated down regardless of their other merits. Hopefully this might reduce the incidence of what appears to be a new form of karma whoring. If anybody agrees with me, I'd even propose altering the moderation guidelines to specifically recommend this.
I don't really like commenting on moderation at all, but this kind of thing is driving me crazy.
Granted, we don't have the technology to do this now, but it is entirely reasonable to imagine that quantum non-locality may be exploited for informational purposes.
Yes, that *might* be the case, but then again it may be impossible to turn quantum effects into a useful communication tool, particularly over interstellar distance. It may well be that radio waves are the best thing we or any other intelligent beings will ever have. In addition, isn't it feasible that aliens will have some kind of beacon system (no, I don't expect they use omnidirectional antennas, the inverse square law might get you into trouble...)so that newly technological societies can get in contact with the rest of the galactic club?.
Overall, don't you think it's at least worth trying a thorough radio search before getting too exotic?
Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist, so I don't have any *real* idea of the feasibility of a quantum FTL communication system. Any physicists care to comment?
At one point or another the IT department will say "at long last, after thirty years of hard work, there is no obvious process left to computerize".
I wonder how far off that point is, particularly when you throw the effect of the Net in. My father was in the office equipment industry (what was photocopiers, but is now more and more about what are essentially high-speed laser printers), and there are many, many business processes that haven't seen technology applied effectively yet. A small for-instance:
A customer rings the dealership to report a fault. The service manager at the dealership then allocates (using rules of thumb rather than anything more sophisticated) a technician to attend the call. A fault report is given to the technician if they are at the dealership, otherwise the message is passed on by mobile phone (which is a drastic improvement on earlier days). The technician then discovers that a machine requires a certain part, they call the dealership on a cellphone, who checks the computer to find out whether the part is in stock. If it is, we're in luck.
If not, the dealership then faxes a handwritten order form to the manufacturer to order the part. When the next batch of parts comes from the manufacturer, the part numbers are entered (by hand) into the computer, and if a part turns out to be the one that the technician needs, they are then notified verbally or by phone. When the problem is fixed, the technician either fills out a handwritten report form which is handed to the service manager for entry in to the computer, or types it in themselves from the notes they took (or memory).
Can you see room for improvement here with a bit of intelligent technology application? Just as importantly, is a slowdown in Moore's law going to make any difference?
IMHO, even if Moore's Law ran out of steam tomorrow (which it won't), there's still plenty of potential productivity improvements out there from IT yet to be realised.
Anybody remember the last category of software that used DOS as its main platform? That's right, games! It took a year or two until there was a sufficient installed base of computers, running a version of Windows that was even vaguely suitable for games, before Windows-specific games started to appear in numbers.
As Xfree 4.0 matures, and more and more people start using Linux as their only operating system, Linux games will start to appear in greater numbers.
Leaving out the ideological arguments, it has been quite adequately demonstrated that censorware can't and won't work. Have you tried explaining this to the decision-makers involved, and going from there to discuss the alternatives already canvassed here (Lynx, login and tracking, placing the computers where access is supervised, etc)?
Packages are nice, but really, if we want to see Linux make it in the Real World (TM) we need to advance to the 21st century and recognize that we must have a simple and easy means of installing new software
We do. We have several - they're called rpm, dpkg and the various front ends. If the user interface of these packages are too arcane, then *they* need work, rather than what you propose . ..
I propose that we follow Apple's lead in this area and move to Self Extracting Executables, ELF binaries that you run and will extract the software and install it for you, without the hassle of remembering arcane flags and what program you're supposed to use.
This is such a boneheaded idea that even Microsoft has largely given it up - IIRC, while each program contains its own installer,the actual work is now managed by the OS.
I'm not denying that there are problems here, your solution has been demonstrated to be a Bad Thing. Making friendly interfaces to dpkg and rpm, and setting them up to make package installs off a CD easier, might help.
And George W. "there should be limits on freedom" and Al "I invented the Internet, and v-chips should be in your TV whether you want them or not" Gore aren't loons?
There is a difference between "I disagree with this candidate's policies" and "This candidate has lost touch with reality in a dangerous way". In the case of Mr. Browne, I was claiming the second statement.
Do you think either of these guys supports the hacker agenda?
No - and I never claimed that they did.
If you do, you're sadly mistaken. They are both quite in favor of government sticking it's nose into your bedroom and PC. Their own public statements and records make it quite clear.
That may well be the case, but it doesn't alter the fact that Mr. Browne's policies show a disturbing lack of understanding of the world beyond the US's borders.
A vote for either is a vote against freedom,
Yes, but I don't want the kind of "freedom" that libertarians propose.
and what's the alternative? Pat Buchanan? There's a paragon of mental stability for you.
Ah, at last, something we can agree on! Yes, Pat Buchanan is truly insane.
In any case, you didn't respond on point. Is this (BMD + border guards) indeed Libertarian Party policy, and do you think it sensible or not?
Between the two of them, I'd have to vote for Harry Browne.
I saw this guy on the PBS Newshour, and, sorry, this guy is a loon. I can't believe anyone would claim with a straight face that America's defence needs can be met with border guards and a BMD system. Even ignoring the feasibility of BMD, try seeing what happens when the Middle East decides to cut off the US's oil and the US is totally impotent to do anything about it.
In case you're under 30, I'll remind you that the European (and American) left once parroted the same ball of #$@! about Reagan and Thatcher. Don't you waste any time thanking them for ending the threat of a Soviet invasion of Europe, okay?
How, praytell? By selling the Soviets the gigantic confidence trick that was SDI? I still can't believe that the Russians fell for it. Then again, the only reason it ever worked is that Reagan was stupid enough to believe his own propaganda . ..
As for Russai and China, I am perfectly happy voting for a candidate who will simultaneously piss two of the most corrupt and tyrannical nations on the face of the Earth.
I'm no fan of Russia and China, but spending sixty billion dollars on a missile defence system that *will not work*, is totally ineffective against the one nuclear attack that anyone is likely to try against the US (a smuggled weapon), and is going to piss off two of the world's biggest countries - they're not going to go away, remember - sounds pretty damn silly to me.
It prevents the user from extending and making their own private modifications of it, whether or not they file for IP protection.
You're wrong, or at least your statement is misleading. The user can make any modifications they like, as long as they don't give modified binaries to anyone else. If you distribute your modifications to others, then you have to give them the source code if they ask. However, if you're writing and (presumably) selling modifications that you wish to keep private, you're not just a user, are you?
As for RMS and IP, I've heard him talk on the subject, and (IIRC, and to paraphrase) he feels that the whole concept of IP is wrong-headed. Rather than attempting to paraphrase him, go read some of his writings.
Microsoft is an example of why anti-trust laws need international bite to back them up, if the global community is serious about using them to bring monopolies to heel. It was fortunate that Microsoft was located in a jurisdiction where US anti-trust law could get at them directly. However, what if they were based in Canada? How about Finland? Even better, what about Japan or South Korea, countries where what the English-speaking world would view as collusion, corruption, and anti-competitive business practices are routine parts of trade?
Possibly as part of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) negotiations, the issue of a global monopoly-busting body is likely going to come up some day. Is such a thing possible? Could it work, or would it just become another political football that the US, EU, and Japan would kick back and forth?
This is essentially Pascal's Wager (or, IIRC, the standard interpretation of what Pascal was rabbiting on about). In essence, the argument goes that the penalty for being a wrong non-believer is a heck of a lot worse than being a wrong believer.
I think the argument is a red herring - it says absolutely nothing about whether God actually exists or not - but then again, my personal view on the matter is "unconvinced atheist" (I don't believe that there is a God, but I don't absolutely discount the possibility of one). Anyway, can somebody please explain whether this argument is relevant to the question "does God exist?", and why?
I don't mean to rain on NASA's parade, but, seriously, who would want to live on other planets?
You are kidding, right? Millions of people have emigrated to the US (not to mention Australia, Canada, etc) because of the prospect of making a better life for themselves and their families.
I see no reason that Mars, given there is the basis for a sustainable economy (there's likely to be some pretty damn pure metal ores, for one thing), wouldn't be the same.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, it was moronic not to be using tags in the first place.
However, I still don't believe that electric vehicles are likely to take off, and there are far easier ways to reduce greenhouse emissions.
The projects were mostly in C or a functional language called Haskell. C++ was avoided for that very reason.
We do that too, (heck, I was marking first-year courses when I was in second year), but if you didn't set up automated testing, it would still take them far too long - the supply of undergrads with clue is finite (and doesn't seem to be growing nearly as fast as enrolments in CS subjects).
Particulrly in upper-level subjects and where the enrolment isn't too outrageous, this is quite sensible. Usually, though, we restrict it to "must compile under platform foo".One other general point - it's amazing how *hard* it is to write good test drivers, isn't it?
Of course, many students wrote their code in (insert favourite moronic Windows IDE here), and just copied the code directly across to the Solaris box, and submitted without even checking to make sure that the program compiled. Many times, the program failed to work, and the students were marked down regardless of their protests of "but it worked at home". How are we supposed to know whether it worked at home or not? In any case, a little bit of investigation usually showed that the program had a combination of bugs that gcc/glibc/Solaris trigged but DroolIDE's compiler environment didn't.
If you have an alternative policy that is even slightly practical for a class with 800-odd students, I'd sure like to hear it!
In any case, it's not going to hurt you to be exposed to a different programming environment. At worst, you'll know *why* Windows programming is as horrible as Slashdotters often regard it :)
Not to mention just how noisy the gadget would be . . .
I believe a personal jetpack was built in the 1950's. If anybody admits to remembering the excreable Jive Bunny, there was footage of it in the videoclip. It worked, the problem was simply the fuel capacity was only sufficient for a few minutes of flight. IIRC one was also used in the LA Olympic closing ceremony.
Consumers aren't stupid. Historically, they have rejected products that restrict their choice, and embraced products that provide freedom, and if the product doesn't provide that out of the box, it'll get modified so that it will. Sony, and the other media conglomerates, will just have to get used to that fact.
On a more general level, I believe that "computer history" is a job for both CS people *and* historians. Professional historians have learned a few tricks over the years about understanding the past, and trying to write history without their skills leads to amateurish, sloppy work. If historians were trying to use computers for their job, should they get help from an expert or should they try and write the code themselves?
Statments like the one above (and like the first and last sentence in the comment I'm replying to) have become far too common on Slashdot, when people express "controversial" (such as pro-MS) opinions. Almost invariably, the comment gets moderated to +4 or +5, regardless of its actual merit, as moderators bend over backwards to be "fair" to the poster and their views.
If a post is truly worthy of attention, even if it goes against the accepted wisdom around here, it will generally get moderated up - konstant, a member of the Microsoft Borg, often got +4's and +5's - and deserved them as he usually posted informative, articulate stuff.
I'd like to suggest a new moderation rule - comments containing the phrase "I'm going to lose karma for this" or similar stuff, regardless of their other merits, should be moderated down regardless of their other merits. Hopefully this might reduce the incidence of what appears to be a new form of karma whoring. If anybody agrees with me, I'd even propose altering the moderation guidelines to specifically recommend this.
I don't really like commenting on moderation at all, but this kind of thing is driving me crazy.
Yes, that *might* be the case, but then again it may be impossible to turn quantum effects into a useful communication tool, particularly over interstellar distance. It may well be that radio waves are the best thing we or any other intelligent beings will ever have. In addition, isn't it feasible that aliens will have some kind of beacon system (no, I don't expect they use omnidirectional antennas, the inverse square law might get you into trouble...)so that newly technological societies can get in contact with the rest of the galactic club?.
Overall, don't you think it's at least worth trying a thorough radio search before getting too exotic?
Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist, so I don't have any *real* idea of the feasibility of a quantum FTL communication system. Any physicists care to comment?
I wonder how far off that point is, particularly when you throw the effect of the Net in. My father was in the office equipment industry (what was photocopiers, but is now more and more about what are essentially high-speed laser printers), and there are many, many business processes that haven't seen technology applied effectively yet. A small for-instance:
Can you see room for improvement here with a bit of intelligent technology application? Just as importantly, is a slowdown in Moore's law going to make any difference?
IMHO, even if Moore's Law ran out of steam tomorrow (which it won't), there's still plenty of potential productivity improvements out there from IT yet to be realised.
Anybody remember the last category of software that used DOS as its main platform? That's right, games! It took a year or two until there was a sufficient installed base of computers, running a version of Windows that was even vaguely suitable for games, before Windows-specific games started to appear in numbers.
As Xfree 4.0 matures, and more and more people start using Linux as their only operating system, Linux games will start to appear in greater numbers.
I wasn't advocating doing nothing - I was advocating trying something other than censorware.
Leaving out the ideological arguments, it has been quite adequately demonstrated that censorware can't and won't work. Have you tried explaining this to the decision-makers involved, and going from there to discuss the alternatives already canvassed here (Lynx, login and tracking, placing the computers where access is supervised, etc)?
We do. We have several - they're called rpm, dpkg and the various front ends. If the user interface of these packages are too arcane, then *they* need work, rather than what you propose . . .
This is such a boneheaded idea that even Microsoft has largely given it up - IIRC, while each program contains its own installer,the actual work is now managed by the OS.
I'm not denying that there are problems here, your solution has been demonstrated to be a Bad Thing. Making friendly interfaces to dpkg and rpm, and setting them up to make package installs off a CD easier, might help.
There is a difference between "I disagree with this candidate's policies" and "This candidate has lost touch with reality in a dangerous way". In the case of Mr. Browne, I was claiming the second statement.
No - and I never claimed that they did.
That may well be the case, but it doesn't alter the fact that Mr. Browne's policies show a disturbing lack of understanding of the world beyond the US's borders.
Yes, but I don't want the kind of "freedom" that libertarians propose.
Ah, at last, something we can agree on! Yes, Pat Buchanan is truly insane.
In any case, you didn't respond on point. Is this (BMD + border guards) indeed Libertarian Party policy, and do you think it sensible or not?
I saw this guy on the PBS Newshour, and, sorry, this guy is a loon. I can't believe anyone would claim with a straight face that America's defence needs can be met with border guards and a BMD system. Even ignoring the feasibility of BMD, try seeing what happens when the Middle East decides to cut off the US's oil and the US is totally impotent to do anything about it.
How, praytell? By selling the Soviets the gigantic confidence trick that was SDI? I still can't believe that the Russians fell for it. Then again, the only reason it ever worked is that Reagan was stupid enough to believe his own propaganda . . .
I'm no fan of Russia and China, but spending sixty billion dollars on a missile defence system that *will not work*, is totally ineffective against the one nuclear attack that anyone is likely to try against the US (a smuggled weapon), and is going to piss off two of the world's biggest countries - they're not going to go away, remember - sounds pretty damn silly to me.
You're wrong, or at least your statement is misleading. The user can make any modifications they like, as long as they don't give modified binaries to anyone else. If you distribute your modifications to others, then you have to give them the source code if they ask. However, if you're writing and (presumably) selling modifications that you wish to keep private, you're not just a user, are you?
As for RMS and IP, I've heard him talk on the subject, and (IIRC, and to paraphrase) he feels that the whole concept of IP is wrong-headed. Rather than attempting to paraphrase him, go read some of his writings.
Gnumeric uses gzipped XML as their file format. It compresses very well, IIRC.
Microsoft is an example of why anti-trust laws need international bite to back them up, if the global community is serious about using them to bring monopolies to heel. It was fortunate that Microsoft was located in a jurisdiction where US anti-trust law could get at them directly. However, what if they were based in Canada? How about Finland? Even better, what about Japan or South Korea, countries where what the English-speaking world would view as collusion, corruption, and anti-competitive business practices are routine parts of trade?
Possibly as part of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) negotiations, the issue of a global monopoly-busting body is likely going to come up some day. Is such a thing possible? Could it work, or would it just become another political football that the US, EU, and Japan would kick back and forth?
This is essentially Pascal's Wager (or, IIRC, the standard interpretation of what Pascal was rabbiting on about). In essence, the argument goes that the penalty for being a wrong non-believer is a heck of a lot worse than being a wrong believer.
I think the argument is a red herring - it says absolutely nothing about whether God actually exists or not - but then again, my personal view on the matter is "unconvinced atheist" (I don't believe that there is a God, but I don't absolutely discount the possibility of one). Anyway, can somebody please explain whether this argument is relevant to the question "does God exist?", and why?
You are kidding, right? Millions of people have emigrated to the US (not to mention Australia, Canada, etc) because of the prospect of making a better life for themselves and their families.
I see no reason that Mars, given there is the basis for a sustainable economy (there's likely to be some pretty damn pure metal ores, for one thing), wouldn't be the same.