I thought the only rocket-related thing reused from the shuttles was the fuel tank, and that only after reconditioning it post-ocean swim.
No, actually it was the Solid Rocket Boosters that were reused. After burnout, they were jettisoned at a (relatively) low altitude. The external tank, which stayed connected to the orbiter to a substantially higher altitude did not survive reentry.
Corporate need a way to limit peoples ability to cheaply manufacture their own products and replacement parts vs buying new plastic crap with high profit margins.
This excuse will work fine thanks.
This. A billion times this! Absolutely!
Where are my mod points when I need them?
No more worrying about click throughs or whatever. Imagine your computer or TV just being able to report back to ad central which ads the users are looking at.
THAT is the only impetus that would ever push this technology forward into common use in the future. It would, of course, be marketed as a convenience for the user or viewer, but it all comes back to the advertisers wanting to know exactly what the user is focusing on.
Don't think for a minute that that information wouldn't be a gold mine to the right people, privacy be further damned!
I think the whole premise is wrong. True "geeks" aren't doing the things they do because they're trying to be in a specific culture or a niche. I think that generally the type of people who are generally considered to be geeky (myself included) happen to have similar interests and views on life. I haven't ever tried to seek out a culture, per se. Rather, the things that I happen to enjoy (computers, trivia, meticulous detail to esoteric things) tend to lead me to things that are considered geeky.
As long as people continue to have a drive to do or participate in those kinds of things, there will always be a culture (whether it be mainstream or a subculture) of geekdom. This, though, like any other culture can still have poseurs. And, just like anyone trying to fit into a given role without feeling truly a part of the heart of it, those are the people who will try to overanalyze the ebb and flow of the culture's status vs. the mainstream.
That's true. In fact, I believe the abbreviation CATV originally stood for Community Antenna Television, where large community antennas were put up in areas where reception was limited, and cables were run to the individual houses.
On the other hand, provided that he's just looking to learn some development skills in Linux, Qt offers a great tool kit with an extremely comprehensive easy-to-use API, an up-and-coming IDE and (very importantly, IMHO) cross-platform development capabilities. It's not shitty if he's just looking to test the waters and get some experience. At this point, so what if it's GPL'd? That seems to fit hand-in-hand with the Linux experience... Linux wouldn't exist as without Open Source code. Later on, should he want to do serious development in Qt, a license would be an option for new projects.
Remember, while Qt licensing doesn't allow a project that's started with the GPL'd version to be released under the commercial license (i.e., no developing under the free version, then buying a license later to "make it commercial"), there's nothing that says you can't use the free version to get familiar with the API, do some learning, and hone your skills, then later buy a commercial license to *begin* new projects. That's what I did.
Trolltech has never licensed Qt per application. It's per developer seat per year. At our company we use Qt for most major development we do. The ease of use, flexibility, outstanding documentation, cross-platform capabilities, and excellent technical support we receive for the price makes it definitely worth the while. We couldn't develop nearly as much as quickly if we didn't have Qt. We've been using it since version 1.2, and have watched the toolkit mature over the last decade. We're a relatively small shop (5 developers) that has to turn around products quickly across a wide array of platforms. For the things Qt does, we haven't found anything that comes close to doing it better or more simply. The up-front cost is an easy sell to our management team, who are thrilled with our performance.
Similarly (as far as experience-related anxiety dreams go) I remember that years ago when I was first learning to drive, I would commonly dream about not being able to brake fast enough to avoid an accident, or I would dream about getting my foot caught under the pedals. No dreams like that ever occurred before I got behind the wheel for the first time, and then never again after I felt comfortable driving.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the only rocket-related thing reused from the shuttles was the fuel tank, and that only after reconditioning it post-ocean swim.
No, actually it was the Solid Rocket Boosters that were reused. After burnout, they were jettisoned at a (relatively) low altitude. The external tank, which stayed connected to the orbiter to a substantially higher altitude did not survive reentry.
So it doesn't anymore?
Corporate need a way to limit peoples ability to cheaply manufacture their own products and replacement parts vs buying new plastic crap with high profit margins. This excuse will work fine thanks.
This. A billion times this! Absolutely! Where are my mod points when I need them?
No more worrying about click throughs or whatever. Imagine your computer or TV just being able to report back to ad central which ads the users are looking at. THAT is the only impetus that would ever push this technology forward into common use in the future. It would, of course, be marketed as a convenience for the user or viewer, but it all comes back to the advertisers wanting to know exactly what the user is focusing on. Don't think for a minute that that information wouldn't be a gold mine to the right people, privacy be further damned!
Negative cost for helium-filled balloons? Hey Tippi Turtle! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQfcbXUpIns
uhhh, what?
Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.
Carry on.
Fat people. Don't forget the fatties. You can slam us... er... them too all you want.
Hear, hear! Exactly spot on!
I think the whole premise is wrong. True "geeks" aren't doing the things they do because they're trying to be in a specific culture or a niche. I think that generally the type of people who are generally considered to be geeky (myself included) happen to have similar interests and views on life. I haven't ever tried to seek out a culture, per se. Rather, the things that I happen to enjoy (computers, trivia, meticulous detail to esoteric things) tend to lead me to things that are considered geeky. As long as people continue to have a drive to do or participate in those kinds of things, there will always be a culture (whether it be mainstream or a subculture) of geekdom. This, though, like any other culture can still have poseurs. And, just like anyone trying to fit into a given role without feeling truly a part of the heart of it, those are the people who will try to overanalyze the ebb and flow of the culture's status vs. the mainstream.
That's true. In fact, I believe the abbreviation CATV originally stood for Community Antenna Television, where large community antennas were put up in areas where reception was limited, and cables were run to the individual houses.
No, Don't panic!
15 years of public school? I can relate. By the time I was in 14th grade, I was pretty bummed out too.
The bully just so happens to play the flute, and makes a little money by selling recordings of him playing.
The bully is Ian Anderson?
On the other hand, provided that he's just looking to learn some development skills in Linux, Qt offers a great tool kit with an extremely comprehensive easy-to-use API, an up-and-coming IDE and (very importantly, IMHO) cross-platform development capabilities. It's not shitty if he's just looking to test the waters and get some experience. At this point, so what if it's GPL'd? That seems to fit hand-in-hand with the Linux experience... Linux wouldn't exist as without Open Source code. Later on, should he want to do serious development in Qt, a license would be an option for new projects. Remember, while Qt licensing doesn't allow a project that's started with the GPL'd version to be released under the commercial license (i.e., no developing under the free version, then buying a license later to "make it commercial"), there's nothing that says you can't use the free version to get familiar with the API, do some learning, and hone your skills, then later buy a commercial license to *begin* new projects. That's what I did.
There's always Rearden metal!
They're behind the times... I learned how to use a slide rule ages ago.
Trolltech has never licensed Qt per application. It's per developer seat per year. At our company we use Qt for most major development we do. The ease of use, flexibility, outstanding documentation, cross-platform capabilities, and excellent technical support we receive for the price makes it definitely worth the while. We couldn't develop nearly as much as quickly if we didn't have Qt. We've been using it since version 1.2, and have watched the toolkit mature over the last decade. We're a relatively small shop (5 developers) that has to turn around products quickly across a wide array of platforms. For the things Qt does, we haven't found anything that comes close to doing it better or more simply. The up-front cost is an easy sell to our management team, who are thrilled with our performance.
Similarly (as far as experience-related anxiety dreams go) I remember that years ago when I was first learning to drive, I would commonly dream about not being able to brake fast enough to avoid an accident, or I would dream about getting my foot caught under the pedals. No dreams like that ever occurred before I got behind the wheel for the first time, and then never again after I felt comfortable driving.
That's easy... they're preparing us to do laundry!
Not that far from the truth either! (Also emacs user)