they are either very stupid all the way up or they are just covering their butts because they sent humans in to wade in the water and surprise, they got radiation burns from the water and the obvious is now in the press for even the ignorant masses to understand.
Since they'd started pouring water on the open buildings I've been wondering how much of that was washing radiation into the ocean down the hill. I'm really wondering if we can really be smart about long term operation of nuclear plants. This is only one example of a huge failure in management but isn't this the norm for business in general. Cost cutting to increase profits is _always_ done and safety is always evaluated as to how much it would be effected and only what's "required" is typically evaluated and that means falling back to governments to set standards and verify and inspect. That's another fail. It really has me wondering.
like the last bunch of financial geniuses who came up with selling, reselling and reselling of mortgages over and over? And lets not forget out the geniuses who came did all the fancy work for those financial firms to produce record quarter after record quarter only to find out they were really losing money by the boat load. How about those going into the commodity business just to purchase and resell oil and energy. I just saw a piece on some software developers who quit doing IT and polled their money and are now making big bucks driving up the cost of fuel and then selling before someone else. A chance to change the world and drive us all into another mess where those who lost the most get bailed out with money from those who were able to just keep their heads above water.
I've often called Microsoft Windows McWindows because I constantly heard people explaining their choice of platform and software because it was popular. This guy doesn't like MS.NET developers because they picked a platform and SDK which is locked down and dictates too many things which you'll have a tough time doing differently. I was blown away in the 90s when there were all these Windows CE clamshell devices and Palm blew them away with a portrait format device( even though the screen was square(160x160) ) and they all closed shop until Microsoft came out with new version of Windows CE which had a different screen resolution designed for portrait layout instead of landscape. I thought WTF, Microsoft was dictating the display format.
So that's the deal, the guy doesn't want developers who pick a platform that'll get them stuff on their screen fast but when the hard stuff shows up, the stuff outside the box, their platform restricts what they can do or how they approach the solution. That's what I got out of it. And it was fun seeing the McDonalds reference. That "everyone else is using it" shit always pissed me off when other technologies were far far better at solving the task and I've even quit a couple of jobs over it. Both those project failed because the lowest common denominator is not often the choice that you'll succeed with. But money just gets wasted and nobody gets fired for picking Microsoft. You just move onto another project and say thanks for the 1, 2, or 3 years of salary. To some, it's more about building it right, building it to last, building it with just a bit if pride. IMO.
just maybe he wants people who know to keep their option open and their platforms for their code open and not choose to get locked into one platform. To the car reference, a guy who's looking to open a garage for building racing engines is not going to hire someone who picked the most marketing engine and learned it inside and out. He's going to hire people who have made choices based on performance concepts like turbos, aluminum blocks, etc.
It is not the PC era any longer and anyone who picks PC era tools is not going thinking big or thinking about their future. This might be where the guy is coming from.
Alice.org is an OO graphical environment for teaching programming and it's a CMU project too. If you don't recall, Randy Pausch was the Director of the Alice project.
why would you be teaching OOP techniques in a 101 level class? Just because Java was used does not REQUIRE you to teach all the features of the language related to OO. There are lots of things which go on at the method level (control, parameter passing, members/variables, etc ) which apply outside of OOP and are still required as basic knowledge. What's nice about the JVM is that it's still free, supports most all platforms, including embedded, and supports many languages. Using it means schools can provide liveCDs with an OS on it along with a completely configured environment for learning the course material. That one liveCD could be used with other languages on the JVM. But if the desire is to teach a particular platforms software and want their students tied to that platform and the tools for that platform by all means spread the FUD like Java being a poor choice for the entry level program class.
From what I've seen, people who are pushing Functional Programming seem to be very tight with Microsoft in one way or another. Microsoft is spending lots of money pushing FP and as we've seen in the past, I would not doubt funding or perks from Microsoft are behind these latest motivations. I've seen a presentation which states that Microsoft likes FP because it can cheaply and easily leverage their development platform and runtime( MS Visual Studio and MS.NET ). maybe here: cufp.galois.com/2008/slides/SymeDon.pdf I remember in the early 90s when C++ cross platform frameworks were all the buzz and Microsoft legally and illegally attacked these vendors while creating their own incompatible and non-standard implementation they called Visual C++. Even back then, they wanted to keep procedural development methods close to the surface of their platform development tools. MFC was a shallow structure with Win32 very close to the surface and from what I read, COM and DCOM were also RPC based when others were doing deep abstractions and CORBA based distributed object systems. Microsoft seems to always go 180 out from the open market and their solutions always have ties to the Windows platform at the core of the solution.
the very first sentence in TFA states it's because 2 professors have fallen for the "functional programming" methodology to solve the parallel processing problems caused by poor OS design in a multi-processor(or core) environment. By believing FP is going to solve all the problems, they're pushing it on the very young and impressionable to further the belief.
As others have stated, an entry level course excluding much or any OOP concepts could be justified easily with the fact that underlying OOP and other methodologies are the methods/procedures. Starting students with a procedural foundation gets them a solid foundation first without mixing in much or any abstraction layering methodology also.
By claiming FP is the reason they show their bias right off the bat and the motivation for the course change. IMO
and they have been hiring Android devs like wildfire and probably have a good size team(s). No doubt some of those are claiming they can do their own OS better.
What I wonder is why they would not try working with Freescale( formerly part of Motorola ) to help them improve their ARM products to suit Motorola's needs since they think TI and Nvidia are not.
if HP still has their design teams around then one possibility might be to look at going to ARM. There's been lots of talk about using ARM in server class systems and it wouldn't be looked at like a completely new architecture. If any team could make a go of using ARM designs in server class devices successfully, the PA-RISC / Itanic teams could. IMO
And that would allow both HPUX and GNU/Linux into their customers data centers with mostly just HPUX rework.
but wouldn't they know what was required to connect up external power? I know there's probably no sticker/label but it sounds like there were not people there who know what to do and what was required. Probably just people who knew what knobs to turn when the dial went to position X so it then moved to position Y. They are very old reactors and from what I heard, the company running it even falsified testing and maintenance records so I wouldn't doubt they skimped on keeping properly skilled Sr Engineers around who knew many of the systems. sad and I doubt I would have been much help.
ah, wrong connectors so send the generators back and run in circles try something else? WTF, they can't cut the cables and weld or clamp the wiring together?
but it put out enough steam and pressure to require venting and then subsequent explosions? Just maybe they could implement a system whereby the residual energy after shutdown can power the cooling system long enough( 48hrs? ) to bring the reactor down to safe temp levels. That would have at least given them 48hours plus to work on the minor cooling system required to keep the spent rod pools cool enough.
and from what I've read, putting the backup generators in water proof rooms would have solved the problem too. I guess they need to keep a big ass extension cord around next time to bring in outside power when their generators flood. If those generators really did get flooded and taken out the tsunami, the operator should be blamed for the event, not mother nature. IMO
Microsoft people are best known for reinventing what others have already done and selling as their invention. These "New Class of Nudlear Reactors" can only be run using Microsoft Windows. Does that answer your question as to why we need a new design as the OP mentioned?
if you don't know by now, Microsoft spends lots of money( billions ) getting people to use their stuff and get some market share. I've seen the Chinese government play games with Microsoft a few times declaring Windows as the "standard" for this, that, or the other thing and the deal includes big cash incentives for doing this. I have little doubt that this company has executives who know Microsoft is spending billions buying resellers of their rehash of a Windows phone OS and are just holding out for more money. They will most likely ship some WP7 phone eventually and get paid well for doing so. We'll see if they are smart enough to not tie the money to sales figures for the phone.
in the early 90s, I read how Microsoft somehow forced the editing of articles about OS/2 which moved critical information off of the initial page so that the first page made OS/2 look completely inferior to a future Microsoft product called Windows 95. Not to mention the things they did to software ISVs to get them to only support Windows. Good comparison to the church of scientology. IMO
paying contracted partners to join an industry standards organization committees around the world, give them instructions on their talking points so they vote in a Microsoft document as a standard. Oh and these Microsoft partners overwhelm the committees such that after the MS project vote they didn't continue their duties on the committees and progress all but stopped in the standards org.
Then there's the bit about assigning no less than 12 Microsoft employees in a controlled effort to direct the product article being written about a Microsoft product. That review was finally assigned after Microsoft hounded the magazine editor to do the review and of course provided the Microsoft contact(s) the author should contact. From what I recall, they had psychologists on the team helping to direct those interfacing with the article author with responses to questions and other ways to direct the author and the information provided to the author on the product.
There's also the running around the globe chasing all the OLPC partner countries and paying them millions to not use OLPC products and lock them into using only Microsoft products.
Not something a company should be listed on a high ethics list IMO.
first he has to sucker the world+dog into believing it's something they must have and no other cookbook is useful because the recipes are incompatible. Using exotic equipment is a good start at making it incompatible. It'll cost a few billion in marketing to get the drones to believe they must have it and nothing else will work.
Slashdot Mirror
they are either very stupid all the way up or they are just covering their butts because they sent humans in to wade in the water and surprise, they got radiation burns from the water and the obvious is now in the press for even the ignorant masses to understand.
Since they'd started pouring water on the open buildings I've been wondering how much of that was washing radiation into the ocean down the hill. I'm really wondering if we can really be smart about long term operation of nuclear plants. This is only one example of a huge failure in management but isn't this the norm for business in general. Cost cutting to increase profits is _always_ done and safety is always evaluated as to how much it would be effected and only what's "required" is typically evaluated and that means falling back to governments to set standards and verify and inspect. That's another fail. It really has me wondering.
LoB
ala "Inside Job" maybe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk
LoB
like the last bunch of financial geniuses who came up with selling, reselling and reselling of mortgages over and over? And lets not forget out the geniuses who came did all the fancy work for those financial firms to produce record quarter after record quarter only to find out they were really losing money by the boat load. How about those going into the commodity business just to purchase and resell oil and energy. I just saw a piece on some software developers who quit doing IT and polled their money and are now making big bucks driving up the cost of fuel and then selling before someone else. A chance to change the world and drive us all into another mess where those who lost the most get bailed out with money from those who were able to just keep their heads above water.
Wall Street is more like a Sewer Street.
LoB
I thought it said, "Friends Don't Let Geek Friends Work In France".
Never mind.
LoB
I've often called Microsoft Windows McWindows because I constantly heard people explaining their choice of platform and software because it was popular. This guy doesn't like MS .NET developers because they picked a platform and SDK which is locked down and dictates too many things which you'll have a tough time doing differently. I was blown away in the 90s when there were all these Windows CE clamshell devices and Palm blew them away with a portrait format device( even though the screen was square(160x160) ) and they all closed shop until Microsoft came out with new version of Windows CE which had a different screen resolution designed for portrait layout instead of landscape. I thought WTF, Microsoft was dictating the display format.
So that's the deal, the guy doesn't want developers who pick a platform that'll get them stuff on their screen fast but when the hard stuff shows up, the stuff outside the box, their platform restricts what they can do or how they approach the solution. That's what I got out of it. And it was fun seeing the McDonalds reference. That "everyone else is using it" shit always pissed me off when other technologies were far far better at solving the task and I've even quit a couple of jobs over it. Both those project failed because the lowest common denominator is not often the choice that you'll succeed with. But money just gets wasted and nobody gets fired for picking Microsoft. You just move onto another project and say thanks for the 1, 2, or 3 years of salary. To some, it's more about building it right, building it to last, building it with just a bit if pride. IMO.
LoB
just maybe he wants people who know to keep their option open and their platforms for their code open and not choose to get locked into one platform. To the car reference, a guy who's looking to open a garage for building racing engines is not going to hire someone who picked the most marketing engine and learned it inside and out. He's going to hire people who have made choices based on performance concepts like turbos, aluminum blocks, etc.
It is not the PC era any longer and anyone who picks PC era tools is not going thinking big or thinking about their future. This might be where the guy is coming from.
LoB
Alice.org is an OO graphical environment for teaching programming and it's a CMU project too.
If you don't recall, Randy Pausch was the Director of the Alice project.
LoB
why would you be teaching OOP techniques in a 101 level class? Just because Java was used does not REQUIRE you to teach all the features of the language related to OO. There are lots of things which go on at the method level (control, parameter passing, members/variables, etc ) which apply outside of OOP and are still required as basic knowledge. What's nice about the JVM is that it's still free, supports most all platforms, including embedded, and supports many languages. Using it means schools can provide liveCDs with an OS on it along with a completely configured environment for learning the course material. That one liveCD could be used with other languages on the JVM. But if the desire is to teach a particular platforms software and want their students tied to that platform and the tools for that platform by all means spread the FUD like Java being a poor choice for the entry level program class.
From what I've seen, people who are pushing Functional Programming seem to be very tight with Microsoft in one way or another. Microsoft is spending lots of money pushing FP and as we've seen in the past, I would not doubt funding or perks from Microsoft are behind these latest motivations. I've seen a presentation which states that Microsoft likes FP because it can cheaply and easily leverage their development platform and runtime( MS Visual Studio and MS.NET ). maybe here: cufp.galois.com/2008/slides/SymeDon.pdf I remember in the early 90s when C++ cross platform frameworks were all the buzz and Microsoft legally and illegally attacked these vendors while creating their own incompatible and non-standard implementation they called Visual C++. Even back then, they wanted to keep procedural development methods close to the surface of their platform development tools. MFC was a shallow structure with Win32 very close to the surface and from what I read, COM and DCOM were also RPC based when others were doing deep abstractions and CORBA based distributed object systems. Microsoft seems to always go 180 out from the open market and their solutions always have ties to the Windows platform at the core of the solution.
LoB
the very first sentence in TFA states it's because 2 professors have fallen for the "functional programming" methodology to solve the parallel processing problems caused by poor OS design in a multi-processor(or core) environment. By believing FP is going to solve all the problems, they're pushing it on the very young and impressionable to further the belief.
As others have stated, an entry level course excluding much or any OOP concepts could be justified easily with the fact that underlying OOP and other methodologies are the methods/procedures. Starting students with a procedural foundation gets them a solid foundation first without mixing in much or any abstraction layering methodology also.
By claiming FP is the reason they show their bias right off the bat and the motivation for the course change. IMO
LoB
and they have been hiring Android devs like wildfire and probably have a good size team(s). No doubt some of those are claiming they can do their own OS better.
What I wonder is why they would not try working with Freescale( formerly part of Motorola ) to help them improve their ARM products to suit Motorola's needs since they think TI and Nvidia are not.
LoB
if HP still has their design teams around then one possibility might be to look at going to ARM. There's been lots of talk about using ARM in server class systems and it wouldn't be looked at like a completely new architecture. If any team could make a go of using ARM designs in server class devices successfully, the PA-RISC / Itanic teams could. IMO
And that would allow both HPUX and GNU/Linux into their customers data centers with mostly just HPUX rework.
LoB
but wouldn't they know what was required to connect up external power? I know there's probably no sticker/label but it sounds like there were not people there who know what to do and what was required. Probably just people who knew what knobs to turn when the dial went to position X so it then moved to position Y. They are very old reactors and from what I heard, the company running it even falsified testing and maintenance records so I wouldn't doubt they skimped on keeping properly skilled Sr Engineers around who knew many of the systems. sad and I doubt I would have been much help.
LoB
that would make more sense.
LoB
ah, wrong connectors so send the generators back and run in circles try something else? WTF, they can't cut the cables and weld or clamp the wiring together?
LoB
but it put out enough steam and pressure to require venting and then subsequent explosions? Just maybe they could implement a system whereby the residual energy after shutdown can power the cooling system long enough( 48hrs? ) to bring the reactor down to safe temp levels. That would have at least given them 48hours plus to work on the minor cooling system required to keep the spent rod pools cool enough.
LoB
and from what I've read, putting the backup generators in water proof rooms would have solved the problem too. I guess they need to keep a big ass extension cord around next time to bring in outside power when their generators flood. If those generators really did get flooded and taken out the tsunami, the operator should be blamed for the event, not mother nature. IMO
LoB
Microsoft people are best known for reinventing what others have already done and selling as their invention. These "New Class of Nudlear Reactors" can only be run using Microsoft Windows. Does that answer your question as to why we need a new design as the OP mentioned?
LoB
Aliens 2, Game Over Man, Game Over
LoB
if you don't know by now, Microsoft spends lots of money( billions ) getting people to use their stuff and get some market share. I've seen the Chinese government play games with Microsoft a few times declaring Windows as the "standard" for this, that, or the other thing and the deal includes big cash incentives for doing this. I have little doubt that this company has executives who know Microsoft is spending billions buying resellers of their rehash of a Windows phone OS and are just holding out for more money. They will most likely ship some WP7 phone eventually and get paid well for doing so. We'll see if they are smart enough to not tie the money to sales figures for the phone.
LoB
Google doesn't want to kick him off because he's "winning" something and makes for lots of ad hits.
LoB
when everyone had a Palm PDA. web solutions won't last IMO and NFC apps will be the next business card exchange mechanism.
LoB
in the early 90s, I read how Microsoft somehow forced the editing of articles about OS/2 which moved critical information off of the initial page so that the first page made OS/2 look completely inferior to a future Microsoft product called Windows 95. Not to mention the things they did to software ISVs to get them to only support Windows. Good comparison to the church of scientology. IMO
LoB
paying contracted partners to join an industry standards organization committees around the world, give them instructions on their talking points so they vote in a Microsoft document as a standard. Oh and these Microsoft partners overwhelm the committees such that after the MS project vote they didn't continue their duties on the committees and progress all but stopped in the standards org.
Then there's the bit about assigning no less than 12 Microsoft employees in a controlled effort to direct the product article being written about a Microsoft product. That review was finally assigned after Microsoft hounded the magazine editor to do the review and of course provided the Microsoft contact(s) the author should contact. From what I recall, they had psychologists on the team helping to direct those interfacing with the article author with responses to questions and other ways to direct the author and the information provided to the author on the product.
There's also the running around the globe chasing all the OLPC partner countries and paying them millions to not use OLPC products and lock them into using only Microsoft products.
Not something a company should be listed on a high ethics list IMO.
LoB
reminds me of recent news on public recordings and cops. they get different interpretations of the law.
LoB
first he has to sucker the world+dog into believing it's something they must have and no other cookbook is useful because the recipes are incompatible. Using exotic equipment is a good start at making it incompatible. It'll cost a few billion in marketing to get the drones to believe they must have it and nothing else will work.
LoB