There is a lot to be said for an external modular approach to computing, esp if you do a lot of field work where a desktop or transportable is not practical. I know several people who have to haul around lugables because they need some kind of functionality that only comes in expansion card form that thunderbolt could potentially replace.
Plus, desktops already have slots, laptops do not. Maybe this would be less important for desktops, but for laptops this has been a long time coming.
Facebook tries to be a cathedral, but lacks enforcement. If they actually applied all their rules (such as no fake names, no game accounts, no friending people you do not know in real life, no friend whoring in games) they would be VERY cathedral like.. but instead they apply them pretty randomly. So it is a cathedral that has become a bazaar due to a couple crooked cops running around yelling at how shocked they are to find gambling going on.
*nods* agree.
I have a feeling the real issue is them trying to figure out what kind of environment they will have and what kinds of users they wish to attract. There are advantages and disadvantages to both models, as there is the idea of making a hybrid one... and each of these 3 solutions will help or harm different populations.
This is an important point....
I find it amusing that some of the technologies that the US government helped fund to thumb their noses at China are now being decried in the US with the same agencies scrambling to find ways to break them. Fighting for the freedom of Chinese citizens, but freaking out when their own use the same protections.
For the most part, the only despising I see in academics has to do with industry culling off their best researchers because private companies can pay more then universities. But really, this gets into the whole debate about types of education.. many people believe education should give you 'strait to job' training, others believe it should give a strong theoretical foundation... and the problem is these are colliding in the 4+ year programs. Personally, I would rather see the job training type education relegated back to the 2 year programs where it used to be and see the 4+ year programs focus less on 'now we are going to teach you the most popular programming languages and technologies so you can immediately get a job with them' when they should probably be teaching, say, a variety of types of languages.
That was my basic thought..... As the AvitarX points out this is kinda covered in the piece,.. but to describe this as 'a problem' is kinda like saying 'well, the sun would make a great vacation spot, but we acknowledge the problem of all that heat'. It is a pretty overriding 'problem'.
Well, that and the worst nuclear disaster we have had in this country was with an experimental sodium reactor like this, where they discovered that the materials of the day were not up to the engineering problems such a reactor posed. They have some advantages yes, but the material science engineering behind them is pretty daunting since you have to swap out a great many of the materials and lubricants in the reactor, otherwise the sodium interacts and bad things happen.
I really hope Niven is not reading this... I could see him trying to jump an even bigger shark with Ringworld if he believed he could cram out another book...
I would argue the exact opposite.. these movies do not exist for the hardcore fans, in fact they tend to do the opposite of what hardcore fans would be interested in. Usually such movies exist to try to bring more people into a franchise by generalizing the movies more and more for broader appeal.. which is why they generally tend to do poorly.
Actually, this is a common myth. Sex offenders have a lower rate of recidivism then the general criminal population... though this depends highly on which groups you want to count. For instance, often the papers that claim a high rate include groups like exhibitionists (which have a very high rate of recidivism) while studies that claim low rates tend to leave out the non-violent cases. Across all factors though, the recidivism rate of sex offenders is lower then the general criminal rates, and even lower if you only count re-offense for another sex crime (as opposed to arrest for any crime period).
The problem with this is, we end up with a fractured language were 'I know C++' communicates less and less to a potential employer or team. One of the nightmares I had dealing with a C++ project even a few years ago was everyone's code looked (and worked) so differently according to when they learned the language to the point they could not maintain each others code. The only solution ends up being forcing a standard of 'which version of C++ we will use', which then results in holy wars and retraining when you bring in more people.
I don't know, I see a LOT of C++ job postings. Most desktop and server application (designed for sale) development is still done in C++, and it is pretty common in middleware.
Some people do not seem satisfied unless it is built into the language via special syntax.... even though existing libraries do the job just fine. Then again I have noticed a lot of people (and schools) seem to be allergic to threading.
Stop trying to add more redundant features to C++... it is already getting progressively harder for C++ programmers to read each other's code and teach newbies what something means.
All this does is result in yet more more syntactic sugar to teach people in order to accomplish the same tasks they can already do with the older standards, and yet another round of relearning so you can tell what someone who learned a 'neat new trick' is doing. And of course you STILL need to teach the old methods to newbies so they can understand C++ code that they have to maintain.
Sadly, designers do not have much interest in 'fixing' things when they can design new stuff AND increase the number of places their design can be used. That is the problem with C++... the people steering it want a language to solve all problems, and increasingly it becomes worse at solving any,.. or at minimal the increasing number of solutions to any given problem embedded in C++ makes understanding it more and more difficult.
I recall when I was in school studying engineering, some professors actively encouraged us to look into financial work..... and over the last 3 months my team has actually lost 2 engineers to NYC financial companies. So yeah.. this is a significant issues.
Even I have been approached with financial work.. but I love engineering too much to transition... so there is some incentive to stay in the field... but you really gotta love what you do.
I think the point is not that it was solved, but that it was 'mostly' solved.
Modern construction, fire codes, and firefighting techniques have resulted in a massive decrease in both number of initial fires and the fire's ability to spread. So while we still need fire departments, the problem of fire has been mostly taken care of.
I think the issue that is being brought up was that the paper did not meet the necessary criteria, but the 4 reviewers that accepted the paper lacked the necessary background to determine this. So in a way it is commenting on a failure in the initial review process.
I actually predict pretty much the opposite. iOS developers are able to charge what they can for their tiny apps because of the locked down device that doesn't allow you to install whatever you want.... their competition is each other. When you start talking desktop, you can go out and grab open source software for many of the same games and tasks or play flash versions. iOS developers will probably not be able to get away with charging such a high premium for their apps when people can go get free ones that do the same job. Traditional developers will probably be unaffected.
Actually, I would argue that one of the reasons ISP were so diverse originally was that the telcos were regulated. Back when narrow band was the norm you could go with dozens of possible providers and it allowed quite a few companies to grow and get people connected. Compared to countries were telcos had the ability to block people from connecting to ISPs they did not own this gave us a diverse marketplace.
So I would argue that we would not have the internet we have today if the FCC had not been regulating it and that if such regulation were extended to broadband we would see a new wave of growth.
Which makes me wonder how long until there is a test case. It is only a matter of time till they do this with some work that people will be willing to go into court and admit they read.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't that usually require explosives?
*nods* in a lot of elitist's minds, Apple is just overpriced junk for stupid people.. thus anything Apple does must be bad/useless for 'real' users.
There is a lot to be said for an external modular approach to computing, esp if you do a lot of field work where a desktop or transportable is not practical. I know several people who have to haul around lugables because they need some kind of functionality that only comes in expansion card form that thunderbolt could potentially replace. Plus, desktops already have slots, laptops do not. Maybe this would be less important for desktops, but for laptops this has been a long time coming.
Facebook tries to be a cathedral, but lacks enforcement. If they actually applied all their rules (such as no fake names, no game accounts, no friending people you do not know in real life, no friend whoring in games) they would be VERY cathedral like.. but instead they apply them pretty randomly. So it is a cathedral that has become a bazaar due to a couple crooked cops running around yelling at how shocked they are to find gambling going on.
*nods* agree. I have a feeling the real issue is them trying to figure out what kind of environment they will have and what kinds of users they wish to attract. There are advantages and disadvantages to both models, as there is the idea of making a hybrid one... and each of these 3 solutions will help or harm different populations.
While the US has problems and I agree we need to fight them.. it is no where on the scale of China/UAE/Iran.
This is an important point.... I find it amusing that some of the technologies that the US government helped fund to thumb their noses at China are now being decried in the US with the same agencies scrambling to find ways to break them. Fighting for the freedom of Chinese citizens, but freaking out when their own use the same protections.
For the most part, the only despising I see in academics has to do with industry culling off their best researchers because private companies can pay more then universities. But really, this gets into the whole debate about types of education.. many people believe education should give you 'strait to job' training, others believe it should give a strong theoretical foundation... and the problem is these are colliding in the 4+ year programs. Personally, I would rather see the job training type education relegated back to the 2 year programs where it used to be and see the 4+ year programs focus less on 'now we are going to teach you the most popular programming languages and technologies so you can immediately get a job with them' when they should probably be teaching, say, a variety of types of languages.
That was my basic thought..... As the AvitarX points out this is kinda covered in the piece,.. but to describe this as 'a problem' is kinda like saying 'well, the sun would make a great vacation spot, but we acknowledge the problem of all that heat'. It is a pretty overriding 'problem'.
I really wish i had mod points right now.. but yeah, this.... they remember the events that lead up to the '84 crash and are worried about parallels.
Well, that and the worst nuclear disaster we have had in this country was with an experimental sodium reactor like this, where they discovered that the materials of the day were not up to the engineering problems such a reactor posed. They have some advantages yes, but the material science engineering behind them is pretty daunting since you have to swap out a great many of the materials and lubricants in the reactor, otherwise the sodium interacts and bad things happen.
I really hope Niven is not reading this... I could see him trying to jump an even bigger shark with Ringworld if he believed he could cram out another book...
I would argue the exact opposite.. these movies do not exist for the hardcore fans, in fact they tend to do the opposite of what hardcore fans would be interested in. Usually such movies exist to try to bring more people into a franchise by generalizing the movies more and more for broader appeal.. which is why they generally tend to do poorly.
Actually, this is a common myth. Sex offenders have a lower rate of recidivism then the general criminal population... though this depends highly on which groups you want to count. For instance, often the papers that claim a high rate include groups like exhibitionists (which have a very high rate of recidivism) while studies that claim low rates tend to leave out the non-violent cases. Across all factors though, the recidivism rate of sex offenders is lower then the general criminal rates, and even lower if you only count re-offense for another sex crime (as opposed to arrest for any crime period).
The problem with this is, we end up with a fractured language were 'I know C++' communicates less and less to a potential employer or team. One of the nightmares I had dealing with a C++ project even a few years ago was everyone's code looked (and worked) so differently according to when they learned the language to the point they could not maintain each others code. The only solution ends up being forcing a standard of 'which version of C++ we will use', which then results in holy wars and retraining when you bring in more people.
I don't know, I see a LOT of C++ job postings. Most desktop and server application (designed for sale) development is still done in C++, and it is pretty common in middleware.
Some people do not seem satisfied unless it is built into the language via special syntax.... even though existing libraries do the job just fine.
Then again I have noticed a lot of people (and schools) seem to be allergic to threading.
Stop trying to add more redundant features to C++... it is already getting progressively harder for C++ programmers to read each other's code and teach newbies what something means.
All this does is result in yet more more syntactic sugar to teach people in order to accomplish the same tasks they can already do with the older standards, and yet another round of relearning so you can tell what someone who learned a 'neat new trick' is doing. And of course you STILL need to teach the old methods to newbies so they can understand C++ code that they have to maintain.
Seriously.. this really does not help.
Sadly, designers do not have much interest in 'fixing' things when they can design new stuff AND increase the number of places their design can be used. That is the problem with C++... the people steering it want a language to solve all problems, and increasingly it becomes worse at solving any,.. or at minimal the increasing number of solutions to any given problem embedded in C++ makes understanding it more and more difficult.
I recall when I was in school studying engineering, some professors actively encouraged us to look into financial work..... and over the last 3 months my team has actually lost 2 engineers to NYC financial companies. So yeah.. this is a significant issues.
Even I have been approached with financial work.. but I love engineering too much to transition... so there is some incentive to stay in the field... but you really gotta love what you do.
I think the point is not that it was solved, but that it was 'mostly' solved.
Modern construction, fire codes, and firefighting techniques have resulted in a massive decrease in both number of initial fires and the fire's ability to spread. So while we still need fire departments, the problem of fire has been mostly taken care of.
I think the issue that is being brought up was that the paper did not meet the necessary criteria, but the 4 reviewers that accepted the paper lacked the necessary background to determine this. So in a way it is commenting on a failure in the initial review process.
I actually predict pretty much the opposite. iOS developers are able to charge what they can for their tiny apps because of the locked down device that doesn't allow you to install whatever you want.... their competition is each other. When you start talking desktop, you can go out and grab open source software for many of the same games and tasks or play flash versions. iOS developers will probably not be able to get away with charging such a high premium for their apps when people can go get free ones that do the same job. Traditional developers will probably be unaffected.
Actually, I would argue that one of the reasons ISP were so diverse originally was that the telcos were regulated. Back when narrow band was the norm you could go with dozens of possible providers and it allowed quite a few companies to grow and get people connected. Compared to countries were telcos had the ability to block people from connecting to ISPs they did not own this gave us a diverse marketplace.
So I would argue that we would not have the internet we have today if the FCC had not been regulating it and that if such regulation were extended to broadband we would see a new wave of growth.
Which makes me wonder how long until there is a test case. It is only a matter of time till they do this with some work that people will be willing to go into court and admit they read.