I agree that fusion would be "OK" but it's a much harder problem to solve than say, a thorium reactor. We've built working thorium reactors. The Chinese and Indians are building them now. It's a resource issue. Is it better to spend money on fusion or thorium. Fusion is a better long term solution, but perhaps effort is better put into Thorium - a lower risk bet with a more certain payoff.
While I agree with you, what are the odds? Democracy has been subverted by the world's wealthy. The behaviors exhibited by them now resemble those of a bacteria colony more than anything else - a form of life not famous for thinking ahead.
I understand that long term, we would want fusion, but we face increasing energy problems over the next 50 years and severe energy problems before 2100. Wouldn't it make sense to allocate research and development resources to something that we know works?
Not to mention the contemplative souls who think it's their god given right to stop*right* at the top of the escalator, suddenly struck by a compulsive need to understand their role in the universe. Ditto for those thoughtful folks who park their carts in the middle of grocery aisle while they weigh the relative merits of "chunky soup" vs. "minestrone"
it is at the discretion of the various states to void our Union, at any time. Um. Apparently not. That's part of what the civil war was about.
but no one can prove proof that it actually occurred. I can "prove proof" it about a thousand different ways, starting with the fossil record and ending with genetic algorithms. As for evolution's shortcomings, please do enlighten us.
there is no fucking mention of creationism being taught in school Correct. Backdoor methods are in. Honest and direct methods are out. Those didn't work and why let honesty get in the way of pushing a religious agenda?
I'll tempered to understand this OK, I think we lost the thread of the English language right about here. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase this in a way that native speakers of American English might understand.
In retrospect, can't we give them the option of succession? The new state of Northern Mexico would admittedly, increase border problems, but think of the tax savings! (http://www.flapolitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3311)
And so what would you suggest that doesn't involve the starvation of 6.5 billion people or so? Before you answer, I recommend you review the actual numbers for power use worldwide here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil.
Thanks, but I'm aware of the "new technology will solve the energy crisis" meme. The deal is this. We do need a new source of electricity as hydrocarbon depletion, or more importantly, hydrocarbon's ever shrinking energy return, starts to bite in a big way. We don't have many affordable options that scale. Nuclear has a chance of that, but conventional plants are dangerous and uranium isn't an infinite resource either. We have much more thorium than uranium, and while the plants are technologically challenging, we've already built them. It's not a matter of "trying to break even." We've broken even. It's a matter of building enough of the things safely and economically. That take incremental development, not some major breakthrough. It seems to me that pursing thorium is an easier and more economic solution than continuing to futz with fusion.
He's right. No customer gives a rat's ass about your clever [fill-in-the-blank].
Moreover, they're just going to be pissed if you make them:
1) Change their paradigm. The first response to this is always "F*** you!" AND the horse you rode in on. 2) Change the interface because *you* think there's a better way to do it (Look at the warm, friendly reception Windows 8 is getting if you don't believe me). 3) Make your software overbearing or impolite (hogging processor or memory, refusing to be uninstalled completely, interrupting, or not responding to something the user is doing as if the computer was more important than the human).
The software industry as we know it today was shaped by 20 somethings in the 90s. Most of us are a bit older than that now, and the stupid arrogance that comes with being that age has to go. Mercifully, that seems to be happening slowly but surely.
You're complaining about obscurity on *Slashdot?* How many obscure articles about Ocaml, framework of the week, etc. come through here. What are they and why should I care is a question I ask regarding quite a number of articles here.
I too have a degree in psychology. These days, I design architectures for automated testing systems which I then code. Also coded up the network control systems to control 60 or so virtual machines which I set up on 12 HP servers. I've coded services. I've coded QA tools. I've coded items that ship with the company's main app.
Self taught. Completely. Tried to take a C course once, but never had time to finish it. I was working 12 hours a day coding in C++ at the time.
As to getting hired, it's become a chore. Idiots rule the roost in corporate hiring. Try smaller companies that need specialized skills. Write yourself something salable and get that going. It proves you have the determination. Don't overspecialize. Do technical writing, technical support, marketing, configuration management, web applications and so on. If you have to specialize, pick a c-form language like Java, C# or C++. VB-form languages aren't bad either, but the current hierarchy of stupidity means that you'll receive less money for using them despite the slightly higher productivity.
The big lesson is "Think." There's money to be made from corporate mistakes. I'm about to write an app that auto-restarts my phone's hot-spot server automatically when it disconnects. An obvious feature that should have been there in the first place. Larger companies are famous for overlooking utterly obvious things. Exploit this.
Make a programming language that's readable by humans, and have the language map concepts to code in the way humans think about things and it will be wildly popular (PHP, VB-anything, C#, Javascript/DOM). Make the programming language terse, efficient and mathematically consistent and it will be wildly popular - among mathematicians and gradually abandoned by most of the rest of humanity (e.g. Fortran, Powershell, C).
In the former cases, the machine does the heavy cognitive lifting. In the latter, you're expected to do it all. Guess why PHP is more popular than C++? Yes, PHP is sloppy, inconsistent and as random as the people who use it. That's the majority of folks who have to get some work done. As awful as the language is, it rules the web along with vb/asp and javascript.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that fusion would be "OK" but it's a much harder problem to solve than say, a thorium reactor. We've built working thorium reactors. The Chinese and Indians are building them now. It's a resource issue. Is it better to spend money on fusion or thorium. Fusion is a better long term solution, but perhaps effort is better put into Thorium - a lower risk bet with a more certain payoff.
While I agree with you, what are the odds? Democracy has been subverted by the world's wealthy. The behaviors exhibited by them now resemble those of a bacteria colony more than anything else - a form of life not famous for thinking ahead.
I understand that long term, we would want fusion, but we face increasing energy problems over the next 50 years and severe energy problems before 2100. Wouldn't it make sense to allocate research and development resources to something that we know works?
And certainly don't do anything to piss it off. These things never end well.
Not to mention the contemplative souls who think it's their god given right to stop*right* at the top of the escalator, suddenly struck by a compulsive need to understand their role in the universe. Ditto for those thoughtful folks who park their carts in the middle of grocery aisle while they weigh the relative merits of "chunky soup" vs. "minestrone"
it is at the discretion of the various states to void our Union, at any time.
Um. Apparently not. That's part of what the civil war was about.
but no one can prove proof that it actually occurred.
I can "prove proof" it about a thousand different ways, starting with the fossil record and ending with genetic algorithms. As for evolution's shortcomings, please do enlighten us.
there is no fucking mention of creationism being taught in school
Correct. Backdoor methods are in. Honest and direct methods are out. Those didn't work and why let honesty get in the way of pushing a religious agenda?
I'll tempered to understand this
OK, I think we lost the thread of the English language right about here. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase this in a way that native speakers of American English might understand.
In retrospect, can't we give them the option of succession? The new state of Northern Mexico would admittedly, increase border problems, but think of the tax savings! (http://www.flapolitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3311)
...it'll be required in public school courses, by law. The trouble with some legislators is that they don't just vote, they're allowed to drive too.
No, I think the major banks and the world economy have this patent now.
Exactly what patents cover that *isn't* within the realm of laws of nature?
...pink unicorns are involved, so perhaps it's horseshit.
Wait, are unicorns horses?
And so what would you suggest that doesn't involve the starvation of 6.5 billion people or so? Before you answer, I recommend you review the actual numbers for power use worldwide here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil.
Thanks, but I'm aware of the "new technology will solve the energy crisis" meme. The deal is this. We do need a new source of electricity as hydrocarbon depletion, or more importantly, hydrocarbon's ever shrinking energy return, starts to bite in a big way. We don't have many affordable options that scale. Nuclear has a chance of that, but conventional plants are dangerous and uranium isn't an infinite resource either. We have much more thorium than uranium, and while the plants are technologically challenging, we've already built them. It's not a matter of "trying to break even." We've broken even. It's a matter of building enough of the things safely and economically. That take incremental development, not some major breakthrough. It seems to me that pursing thorium is an easier and more economic solution than continuing to futz with fusion.
most of this species of wingnut would be in jail.
Seems like thorium reactors, which we've already built, and gotten working, are a much more tractable problem.
not augment it, but then I realized that it would just go faster and faster the longer I was in it. That's when I decided to go back to bed.
Put out the cat. Put out the kids. Put out the girlfriend/wife/paramour/needy friend. Put on the headphones. Focus, focus, focus...
He's right. No customer gives a rat's ass about your clever [fill-in-the-blank].
Moreover, they're just going to be pissed if you make them:
1) Change their paradigm. The first response to this is always "F*** you!" AND the horse you rode in on.
2) Change the interface because *you* think there's a better way to do it (Look at the warm, friendly reception Windows 8 is getting if you don't believe me).
3) Make your software overbearing or impolite (hogging processor or memory, refusing to be uninstalled completely, interrupting, or not responding to something the user is doing as if the computer was more important than the human).
The software industry as we know it today was shaped by 20 somethings in the 90s. Most of us are a bit older than that now, and the stupid arrogance that comes with being that age has to go. Mercifully, that seems to be happening slowly but surely.
You're complaining about obscurity on *Slashdot?* How many obscure articles about Ocaml, framework of the week, etc. come through here. What are they and why should I care is a question I ask regarding quite a number of articles here.
I too have a degree in psychology. These days, I design architectures for automated testing systems which I then code. Also coded up the network control systems to control 60 or so virtual machines which I set up on 12 HP servers. I've coded services. I've coded QA tools. I've coded items that ship with the company's main app.
Self taught. Completely. Tried to take a C course once, but never had time to finish it. I was working 12 hours a day coding in C++ at the time.
As to getting hired, it's become a chore. Idiots rule the roost in corporate hiring. Try smaller companies that need specialized skills. Write yourself something salable and get that going. It proves you have the determination. Don't overspecialize. Do technical writing, technical support, marketing, configuration management, web applications and so on. If you have to specialize, pick a c-form language like Java, C# or C++. VB-form languages aren't bad either, but the current hierarchy of stupidity means that you'll receive less money for using them despite the slightly higher productivity.
The big lesson is "Think." There's money to be made from corporate mistakes. I'm about to write an app that auto-restarts my phone's hot-spot server automatically when it disconnects. An obvious feature that should have been there in the first place. Larger companies are famous for overlooking utterly obvious things. Exploit this.
You deserve whatever you get. I predict wide adoption.
Make a programming language that's readable by humans, and have the language map concepts to code in the way humans think about things and it will be wildly popular (PHP, VB-anything, C#, Javascript/DOM). Make the programming language terse, efficient and mathematically consistent and it will be wildly popular - among mathematicians and gradually abandoned by most of the rest of humanity (e.g. Fortran, Powershell, C).
In the former cases, the machine does the heavy cognitive lifting. In the latter, you're expected to do it all. Guess why PHP is more popular than C++? Yes, PHP is sloppy, inconsistent and as random as the people who use it. That's the majority of folks who have to get some work done. As awful as the language is, it rules the web along with vb/asp and javascript.
Getting the picture?
Caffeine free coffee (shudder). The horror..... the horror...
I'm glad I didn't read this. My engineering career took off when I turned 40.
a *lot* longer. Maybe, we can just turn them into the whole darn show. I see sitcoms developing around viagra. (Stay tuned for "What's up, Doc?!)