/** They had posession of an alien fighter, so yes, they did have a clue what kind of technology they were dealing with. I would have expected the alien tech to have advanced quite a bit over 40 years, however. **/
Well, the government had posession, but there are two problems with that
They could not get it powered up (until the mothership came back)
Jeff Goldblum's character didn't have access to the ship for 40 years, he just looked at their computer thing and said "I can write a virus for this".
I can't believe I'm still debating this so long after the fact...:)
Sure, "Aliens" are technically possible, and advanced technology could explain their weapons systems and drives, but connecting to a computer system that you've never even seen... wirelessly... and writing a virus for the same system? Finding their signal? I'm sure they weren't using cox highspeed. Handshaking, protocol? Are they just using UDP or TCP/IP on this "millions of years advanced" ship?
They might be even be using something other than binary computers, in which case the entire premise is flawed. Besides, the finale of the movie was only possible because he was able to do this. It was retarded. So yeah, pretty much.
Puh-leeze, the most annoying "pull-you-out-of-the-movie" moment for me was Jeff Goldblum writing the ID4 virus to take out the shields on the mothership, and then connecting with "AlienOS Airport".
*blech*
/* Yeah, but in the next sentence he explicity states that he is in no way threatening any kind of harm. From what I can understand, this post was in retaliation to the administration coming down on him and his family for posts prior to this one.*/
Yeah... so some guy runs into my back bumper. I tell him "The last time someone ran into my bumper and didn't have insurance, he ended up dead... Not that I'm threatening to kill you and bury in the desert. No, I'm not planning on slicing you open like a gutted fish, so don't worry. I'm just letting you know." Now what should a listener infer from that? It seems like a threat, even when I explicity tell the guy that it's not.
By making the reference to the kids at Columbine, he made the veiled threat. Even when he qualified it after the reference, it could still be construed as a threat... eg "Columbine was a result of people being bullied... Not that I'll do the same thing, but keep in mind that *Columbine was the result of being bullied*."
He was in the wrong, and he should at least accept that part of it. Besides, if anything happened after that, the school would be in a much worse position than if they did nothing. The school is just in a bad, bad position now.
blah... This sounded much more clear when I was thinking it... need more coffee...
And in fact, A000 was the start of video memory in graphics mode, while B800 was the start of video memory in text mode. Yeah... I've poked around in there a few times...
/* So, they have had exponentially more generations than us, and survival wasn't an issue. When I asked a professor point blank why the need for art and culture would develop through the course of evolution, he responded that he doesn't believe those traits would stem from evolution. */
That's kind of a neat take on evolution, but I think I have an answer.
First of all, language was important because it allows you to learn things without direct experience. That seems to be pretty much a given. I don't need to jump off of a bridge to know that I'll die or be seriously injured from the fall, because I've been told what are the consequences.
Appreciation of art was not the product of evolution, it was one of the things that *drove* evolution. See, the fact that we enjoy art is predicated on the human ability to see patterns, and that is most certainly an evolutionary advantage.
The ability to apprciate art
That would probably explain why I look like a silverback when my shirt's off. And the calluses on my knuckles? It's cause the drag on the ground when I walk.
Damn, I hate being a primate.
/* I trust that you will recognize the necessity of these improvements and adopt them immediately; */
I'm not sure if you or the original_ac(void) are aware of this, but I haven't asked anyone to "adopt" my style of comments. My point is only that it is easy to see what is quoted and what was original. Really, what's so hard about that? When I do tell people to adopt my style, I will feel a more compelling need to explain why it's better. Until then, my opinion is all that matters when it comes to my posts. Besides, the asshole called me a moron. So fuck him.
/* Let's make up formatting rules based on programming and then defend them by pointing out that it is technically possible to understand the message in spite of the formatting;*/
And the point is not that it is possible to understand the message in spite of the formatting, it's that it is easier to understand the message because of the formatting.
/* Why are you using C-style comments to quote text? WTF kind of moron are you? */
Well let me ask you this retard.... Could you tell at a glance what was original text and what was quoted? I thought so... It seems a bridge is missing it's troll. Go back and tell the three billy goats gruff that I said hi.
and the Buckley Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_Prize
and a jillion more that a lot of folks just don't know about. It may be that these things aren't as well publicized as the Nobel.
The matter of funding for LENR is a simple one. It's Pascal's Wager. Bet a little bit on the outcome of something that has little chance of succeeding. If it works, you make a mint, and if it doesn't, you are only out a little bit. It's the same as the lottery. You know when you buy the ticket that you won't win, but it's only a dollar, and if you win...
Here's what else the DOE said in the report. The preponderance of the reviewers' evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. One reviewer believed that the occurrence was demonstrated, and several reviewers did not address the question.
and... Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive
for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they
were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation,
background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results
presented.
and finally... Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not,
stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.
So what we have is two-thirds of the reviewers saying the evidence was not conclusive. This wasn't meant to be a knock Pons day, and it would be really, really cool if it worked, but the majority of reviewers say that it was not demonstrated.
So let's fund it for... say 100 million dollars. That's a tiny fraction of the US budget, and if it pays off... woo-hoo... but again, don't disconnect from APS just yet.
/* But, I put it to any sceptic - do you have any evidence he didn't see any of that */
No, I have not. But then again, I have no evidence that you are not a 4' tall green lion from the planet ipthar typing telepathically to/. However, until I've seen documentation of 4' tall green lions from the planet ipthar *with* telepathy, I am just going to assume that you are a human using some sort of input device like everyone else.
/* ultimately physics and it's laws are all works in progress, subject to validation and dismissal at any point */
Exactly. When I see any evidence that there is a way to get free energy, I'll be sure to look at it. However, some dude telling me that the Pentagon has free energy, even though I see tanks still using diesel (or jp4 or whatever those things use now) is just not enough evidence to get excited about, let alone examine.
/* At the moment, the only opposition you provide is a facile statement of your belief in the Law of Thermodynamics, and a baseless dismissal of the things he has suggested he has seen. */
You are absolutely correct there. I have a belief in a law that has been proven over and over, and has *never*... *ever* been proven to not work. Does anyone really think that maybe I should believe in some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics?
Now, about the *baseless* dismissal. It's not without foundation as you seem to imply. The foundation of my dismissal is the knowledge that anti-gravity and perpetual motion machines have been proven over and over again to be not feasible. That's not baseless; it's empiricism.
/*You have no evidence he is wrong*/
Of course I don't. And in fact, there is not a single person in the world that has evidence that he is wrong, because there's not a single person in the world that knows every document in every server in the world. But the historical evidence shows that every single person who bets against the law of conservation of energy has lost. Does that mean that it's always going to be? Well... not necessarily... but for now, I wouldn't disconnect from the local electric company.
/*[suppressed technology]... anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. */
Actually, there are a lot of people that would say things like this without ever actually seeing it. I'd refer you to Pons and Fleischmann of the Cold Fusion fiasco for example. Maybe at first they thought they had something, but eventually, they had to know that they were mistaken. Neither of them, however, admitted that they had made a mistake.
There have been a ton of these devices designed and built over the years, and not a single one of them works. You just can't violate the laws of thermodynamics. Not ever. /* He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government. */
Or possibly he would know that the government is just not able to provide information, thus proving him correct, and a great, great man. Come on, really. Anti-gravity? Free Energy? geez....
/* To me, this is almost as bad as the stupid myth that two photons cannot pass each other at relative velocity greater than C. */
Actually, that's not a myth.
Here's the q&d explanation: Each photon is travelling at c.
In the frame of reference of photon a, photon b would be at rest
In the frame of reference of photon b, photon a would be at rest
If there were a clock on each of the photons (remember, q&d)... The clock on photon b would appear stopped to any observer on photon a, and vice verce. Thus, at relativistic speeds, the time of the other photon is slowed to the point of stoppage. This is the effect that allows particles with half-lives in the nano-seconds to plummet all the way through our atmosphere and be detected at the ground. I believe the project to which I am referring is called "project cangaroo", but that might only be where the detectors are located.
In any case, it's not a myth, no matter how insane it sounds. The time dilation effect cancels out the increased velocity.
/* But on average it is totally true. Total amount won = total amount bet - rake. The average winnings will always be about 1-2% smaller than the average bet...so on average, poker players lose too.*/
That's true if you use the average. The house taking the rake will obviously make the average winnings go down. The point, however is that good players beat bad players most of the time. So good players make money usually, and the bad players lose money usually.
/*
Gambling casinos don't gamble. If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose. */
If this was a slot machine, or other game of chance where the casino has a vested interest in you losing all of your money, that would be true.
This seems to be more about poker, though. In poker, you do not play against the casino, you play against the rubes. The house merely takes a percentage (the rake) of the pot. On the $3-$6 tables I play, that starts a $1 per pot.
Now, what happens is that people come and go on this table, and they tend to lose x amount of money before they leave. When one player leaves the table, the pots get smaller, and that means the rake gets smaller.
Now, using this information, it seems to me that the casinos want you to play A LOT of hands.
More players = bigger pots = higher rake
Poker is the one game where the casino does not care at all how much you make or lose at the table, because they only get a percentage of each pot.
/* the criteria is this, you can be an amateur, or an american */
<sarcasm>
Well, that would most certainly explain the utter lack of Russian and Canadian Ice Hockey Medals
</sarcasm>
/*
Yet someone else who is assuming I'm extorting companies?
I said in the above, I SEE this as part of my job, I don't DO it?
You guys love your conclusion-jumping don't you? */
uhh.... seriously, no more espresso. I didn't accuse you of anything, I said that the thing you are DESCRIBING is extortion. Now, you can gather whatever info you want from the above comment, and re-think your response.
I know it's stupid to get your hopes up at this early date, but I have a good friend that has been living with HIV for almost 10 years, and the last I heard, the average life span from infection is about 9 years. I'd love to see this peer-reviewed, and if no major flaws are found, fast-tracked. It'd be damn nice, and about time.
/*
In other words it used to be that there were classes for the more gifted, and different classes for the less gifted. Now that this distinction is no longer politically correct, somebodies feelings might get hurt, so they just bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator in one class. Is this not the experience with the public education system, and the cookie cutter unionized teachers? */
I disagree at least about the AP classes. Of my four sons, three of them were in Honors Math and English from the time they were eligible. The other one was only in English. I think the difference in a lot, if not most of the underperforming children is not the fault of the schools, but the parents. I talked to my kids about physics and math before they even knew what it was. They were also read to almost every night, either by me or my wife. If the kids are less intelligent than a previous generation, it's the fault of the people raising the generation, not the "politically correct" climate
/* As our tech increases we need less and less knowledge about it. My mom knew how to wire a fuse. I know how to screw in one. My kid knows how to throw a circuit breaker. Wich one of us would be more likely to be able to get a car moving when there is no replacement fuse available? */
There is a science fiction story that has fascinated me from the first time I read it. It's called "The Black Bag" by Kornbluth, and it's about a doctor's "little black bag" from the future. The bag is filled with instruments that any person of any intelligence can operate effectively.
That's only part of the subject of my post, however. One of the asides in this story is that in this future, technology makes it possible for anyone to become just about anything (career-wise) at least. The point was that the people who were operating the equipment were just not that bright, and could only follow instructions because the instruments were so perfectly made. The high-powered careers were filled by the mediocre, and the true geniuses were janitors with lots of free time to ponder and invent.
This seems more and more like the situation we are now in. I remember writing code in x86 assembler, not for the fun of it (although if it wasn't, I'd have never done it), but because if you wanted your computer to do certain things, you had to know what the stack, the heap, the registers, the segments, and all the other intricacies were. With the power of computers now, it's like the black bag; the geniuses write the tools, and anyone with a little ability can do the easy stuff like coding. Now apply that to your favorite technology, and mix well.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the government had posession, but there are two problems with that
I can't believe I'm still debating this so long after the fact...
Sure, "Aliens" are technically possible, and advanced technology could explain their weapons systems and drives, but connecting to a computer system that you've never even seen... wirelessly... and writing a virus for the same system? Finding their signal? I'm sure they weren't using cox highspeed. Handshaking, protocol? Are they just using UDP or TCP/IP on this "millions of years advanced" ship?
They might be even be using something other than binary computers, in which case the entire premise is flawed. Besides, the finale of the movie was only possible because he was able to do this. It was retarded. So yeah, pretty much.
Puh-leeze, the most annoying "pull-you-out-of-the-movie" moment for me was Jeff Goldblum writing the ID4 virus to take out the shields on the mothership, and then connecting with "AlienOS Airport". *blech*
/* Yeah, but in the next sentence he explicity states that he is in no way threatening any kind of harm. From what I can understand, this post was in retaliation to the administration coming down on him and his family for posts prior to this one.*/
Yeah... so some guy runs into my back bumper. I tell him "The last time someone ran into my bumper and didn't have insurance, he ended up dead... Not that I'm threatening to kill you and bury in the desert. No, I'm not planning on slicing you open like a gutted fish, so don't worry. I'm just letting you know." Now what should a listener infer from that? It seems like a threat, even when I explicity tell the guy that it's not.
By making the reference to the kids at Columbine, he made the veiled threat. Even when he qualified it after the reference, it could still be construed as a threat... eg "Columbine was a result of people being bullied... Not that I'll do the same thing, but keep in mind that *Columbine was the result of being bullied*."
He was in the wrong, and he should at least accept that part of it. Besides, if anything happened after that, the school would be in a much worse position than if they did nothing. The school is just in a bad, bad position now.
blah... This sounded much more clear when I was thinking it... need more coffee...
And in fact, A000 was the start of video memory in graphics mode, while B800 was the start of video memory in text mode. Yeah... I've poked around in there a few times...
/* So, they have had exponentially more generations than us, and survival wasn't an issue. When I asked a professor point blank why the need for art and culture would develop through the course of evolution, he responded that he doesn't believe those traits would stem from evolution. */
That's kind of a neat take on evolution, but I think I have an answer.
First of all, language was important because it allows you to learn things without direct experience. That seems to be pretty much a given. I don't need to jump off of a bridge to know that I'll die or be seriously injured from the fall, because I've been told what are the consequences.
Appreciation of art was not the product of evolution, it was one of the things that *drove* evolution. See, the fact that we enjoy art is predicated on the human ability to see patterns, and that is most certainly an evolutionary advantage. The ability to apprciate art
That would probably explain why I look like a silverback when my shirt's off. And the calluses on my knuckles? It's cause the drag on the ground when I walk. Damn, I hate being a primate.
/* I trust that you will recognize the necessity of these improvements and adopt them immediately; */
/* Let's make up formatting rules based on programming and then defend them by pointing out that it is technically possible to understand the message in spite of the formatting;*/
I'm not sure if you or the original_ac(void) are aware of this, but I haven't asked anyone to "adopt" my style of comments. My point is only that it is easy to see what is quoted and what was original. Really, what's so hard about that? When I do tell people to adopt my style, I will feel a more compelling need to explain why it's better. Until then, my opinion is all that matters when it comes to my posts. Besides, the asshole called me a moron. So fuck him.
And the point is not that it is possible to understand the message in spite of the formatting, it's that it is easier to understand the message because of the formatting.
/* Why are you using C-style comments to quote text? WTF kind of moron are you? */
Well let me ask you this retard.... Could you tell at a glance what was original text and what was quoted? I thought so... It seems a bridge is missing it's troll. Go back and tell the three billy goats gruff that I said hi.
I must apologize, as I didn't make it clear that I was just joking.i ence
But if you are really interested, there is the National Medal of Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Medal_of_Sc
and the Clay Research Prize
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Research_Award
and the Buckley Prize
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_Prize
and a jillion more that a lot of folks just don't know about. It may be that these things aren't as well publicized as the Nobel.
/* In a comparative example, researchers that achieve breakthroughs in the UK tend to get knighted. */
Yeah, like those world famous researchers "Sir Elton John", "Sir Roger Moore", and "Sir Paul McCartney". I see where you are going with that.
The matter of funding for LENR is a simple one. It's Pascal's Wager. Bet a little bit on the outcome of something that has little chance of succeeding. If it works, you make a mint, and if it doesn't, you are only out a little bit. It's the same as the lottery. You know when you buy the ticket that you won't win, but it's only a dollar, and if you win...
Here's what else the DOE said in the report.
The preponderance of the reviewers' evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. One reviewer believed that the occurrence was demonstrated, and several reviewers did not address the question.
and...
Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented.
and finally...
Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.
So what we have is two-thirds of the reviewers saying the evidence was not conclusive. This wasn't meant to be a knock Pons day, and it would be really, really cool if it worked, but the majority of reviewers say that it was not demonstrated.
So let's fund it for... say 100 million dollars. That's a tiny fraction of the US budget, and if it pays off... woo-hoo... but again, don't disconnect from APS just yet.
/* But, I put it to any sceptic - do you have any evidence he didn't see any of that */
/. However, until I've seen documentation of 4' tall green lions from the planet ipthar *with* telepathy, I am just going to assume that you are a human using some sort of input device like everyone else.
/* ultimately physics and it's laws are all works in progress, subject to validation and dismissal at any point */
/* At the moment, the only opposition you provide is a facile statement of your belief in the Law of Thermodynamics, and a baseless dismissal of the things he has suggested he has seen. */
/*You have no evidence he is wrong*/
No, I have not. But then again, I have no evidence that you are not a 4' tall green lion from the planet ipthar typing telepathically to
Exactly. When I see any evidence that there is a way to get free energy, I'll be sure to look at it. However, some dude telling me that the Pentagon has free energy, even though I see tanks still using diesel (or jp4 or whatever those things use now) is just not enough evidence to get excited about, let alone examine.
You are absolutely correct there. I have a belief in a law that has been proven over and over, and has *never*... *ever* been proven to not work. Does anyone really think that maybe I should believe in some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics?
Now, about the *baseless* dismissal. It's not without foundation as you seem to imply. The foundation of my dismissal is the knowledge that anti-gravity and perpetual motion machines have been proven over and over again to be not feasible. That's not baseless; it's empiricism.
Of course I don't. And in fact, there is not a single person in the world that has evidence that he is wrong, because there's not a single person in the world that knows every document in every server in the world. But the historical evidence shows that every single person who bets against the law of conservation of energy has lost. Does that mean that it's always going to be? Well... not necessarily... but for now, I wouldn't disconnect from the local electric company.
/*[suppressed technology]... anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. */
/* He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government. */
Actually, there are a lot of people that would say things like this without ever actually seeing it. I'd refer you to Pons and Fleischmann of the Cold Fusion fiasco for example. Maybe at first they thought they had something, but eventually, they had to know that they were mistaken. Neither of them, however, admitted that they had made a mistake.
There have been a ton of these devices designed and built over the years, and not a single one of them works. You just can't violate the laws of thermodynamics. Not ever.
Or possibly he would know that the government is just not able to provide information, thus proving him correct, and a great, great man. Come on, really. Anti-gravity? Free Energy? geez....
/* To me, this is almost as bad as the stupid myth that two photons cannot pass each other at relative velocity greater than C. */
Actually, that's not a myth.
Here's the q&d explanation: Each photon is travelling at c.
In the frame of reference of photon a, photon b would be at rest
In the frame of reference of photon b, photon a would be at rest
If there were a clock on each of the photons (remember, q&d)... The clock on photon b would appear stopped to any observer on photon a, and vice verce. Thus, at relativistic speeds, the time of the other photon is slowed to the point of stoppage. This is the effect that allows particles with half-lives in the nano-seconds to plummet all the way through our atmosphere and be detected at the ground. I believe the project to which I am referring is called "project cangaroo", but that might only be where the detectors are located.
In any case, it's not a myth, no matter how insane it sounds. The time dilation effect cancels out the increased velocity.
/* I knew the Geek Squad was a fake the first time I saw a commercial... There was a girl. That was all I needed. */
It was only a definite fake if the girl was hot. That would be the true "tell".
/* But on average it is totally true. Total amount won = total amount bet - rake. The average winnings will always be about 1-2% smaller than the average bet...so on average, poker players lose too.*/
That's true if you use the average. The house taking the rake will obviously make the average winnings go down. The point, however is that good players beat bad players most of the time. So good players make money usually, and the bad players lose money usually.
/* Gambling casinos don't gamble. If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose. */
If this was a slot machine, or other game of chance where the casino has a vested interest in you losing all of your money, that would be true.
This seems to be more about poker, though. In poker, you do not play against the casino, you play against the rubes. The house merely takes a percentage (the rake) of the pot. On the $3-$6 tables I play, that starts a $1 per pot.
Now, what happens is that people come and go on this table, and they tend to lose x amount of money before they leave. When one player leaves the table, the pots get smaller, and that means the rake gets smaller.
Now, using this information, it seems to me that the casinos want you to play A LOT of hands.
More players = bigger pots = higher rake
Poker is the one game where the casino does not care at all how much you make or lose at the table, because they only get a percentage of each pot.
/* the criteria is this, you can be an amateur, or an american */
<sarcasm>
Well, that would most certainly explain the utter lack of Russian and Canadian Ice Hockey Medals
</sarcasm>
/* Yet someone else who is assuming I'm extorting companies?
I said in the above, I SEE this as part of my job, I don't DO it?
You guys love your conclusion-jumping don't you? */
uhh.... seriously, no more espresso. I didn't accuse you of anything, I said that the thing you are DESCRIBING is extortion. Now, you can gather whatever info you want from the above comment, and re-think your response.
/* Hacker finds a critical flaw and blackmails a company for HUNDREDS of thousands. */
/* The $10K is certain. The few hundred K is a risk (or not an option for those with scruples) */
I believe the correct phrase is "extortion".
Given the above comment, it's also not an option for those that don't want to go to prison.
I know it's stupid to get your hopes up at this early date, but I have a good friend that has been living with HIV for almost 10 years, and the last I heard, the average life span from infection is about 9 years. I'd love to see this peer-reviewed, and if no major flaws are found, fast-tracked. It'd be damn nice, and about time.
I disagree at least about the AP classes. Of my four sons, three of them were in Honors Math and English from the time they were eligible. The other one was only in English. I think the difference in a lot, if not most of the underperforming children is not the fault of the schools, but the parents. I talked to my kids about physics and math before they even knew what it was. They were also read to almost every night, either by me or my wife. If the kids are less intelligent than a previous generation, it's the fault of the people raising the generation, not the "politically correct" climate
There is a science fiction story that has fascinated me from the first time I read it. It's called "The Black Bag" by Kornbluth, and it's about a doctor's "little black bag" from the future. The bag is filled with instruments that any person of any intelligence can operate effectively.
That's only part of the subject of my post, however. One of the asides in this story is that in this future, technology makes it possible for anyone to become just about anything (career-wise) at least. The point was that the people who were operating the equipment were just not that bright, and could only follow instructions because the instruments were so perfectly made. The high-powered careers were filled by the mediocre, and the true geniuses were janitors with lots of free time to ponder and invent.
This seems more and more like the situation we are now in. I remember writing code in x86 assembler, not for the fun of it (although if it wasn't, I'd have never done it), but because if you wanted your computer to do certain things, you had to know what the stack, the heap, the registers, the segments, and all the other intricacies were. With the power of computers now, it's like the black bag; the geniuses write the tools, and anyone with a little ability can do the easy stuff like coding. Now apply that to your favorite technology, and mix well.