So a ship that HAD to reach a non-trivial escape velocity would take a lot more energy than something that could be slowly ratcheted. As I understand it, as you approach zero speed, you actually approach zero energy input (I may be wrong about this).
Also, a ship must contain its own fuel, an elevator could be powered by electricity or some matter being sent up the tether. This requirement is a HUGE percentage of the total fuel requirement (and the new fuel required to lift the mass of the fuel must have it's own fuel...)
Also, compared to today's shuttles, it would be incredibly quick (From the planning stage, how long do you think it takes to send a ship into space now? Isn't it still years? Even if it were 6 months which I seriously doubt, a lift would be much quicker)
>> and it STILL takes just as much actual energy to put anything in orbit...just it does so pathetically slowly.
So, no it doesn't take as much energy (but your solution does), and it's not terribly slow (your solution requires a more sturdy construction and would probably be much slower)
I think your whole theory is quite incorrect.
Might I put fort that perhaps you have become religiously attached to this laser idea and are adjusting, creating and/or forgetting facts to match the way you would like to see the situation? This happens to many people constantly (esp conservatives because it's the nature and definition of conservatism to hang on to concepts and not challenge them)--I'm not trying to be rude, just making a suggestion that you challenge your personal precepts a bit more.
No, it's never been worth it. If you are trying to decide what to do, and think that maybe you'll try programming--just save us all a lot of time and effort and do something else.
How come you never see people saying "Should I go into Painting", or "Maybe I'll try Music as a career". When it comes to careers that are art, including programming, If you don't KNOW that's what you are going to do, then you're just not going to do it well enough to make anyone happy.
When you wonder why virtually all software is buggy, full of delays, poorly designed and shoddily implemented--it's generally because someone is doing a job rather than creating art.
So then this is one of those cases where "if you have to ask, the answer is NO".
Give up two hours of your time. Vote by mail and as you are going through the choices, check out the stuff in the voters pamphlet. It's pretty informative and usually shows both sides of the issue fairly well.
If you have questions after the pamphlet, hit the internet and see if you can find more.
That said, when it comes down to voting for candidates, I recommend voting for independents whenever you get the chance. It's not really throwing away your vote (the only way to do that would be to vote for a republican or a democrat), but it is showing support for opening up of the current one-party system (the corporate party). If they get 5 percent of the vote, they start to get matching funding which will help them compete.
Tell yourself that if the software you are writing is not secure, you will lose everything, and then tell all the people up the chain of command and all your customers the exact same thing.
Really good point, although I'd be totally in for $180. If course then they would need 200,000 salse instead of 100,000 (I assume they are using the profit to get the company rolling)
Also, if it's really a problem, try to work something out with Google. Maybe they could buy one for each employee or each employee's kid or something...
That was my first thought. It zooms in exactly like Google Earth. That means there is an application on the PC to render it exactly like google earth--it also means that the pictures that compose it are downloaded from the web dynamically, exactly like google earth.
Anyone want to calculate the number of pixels available in Google earth?
Also, why can't cameras do live panning yet? In order to create a large photo you should be able to put it into "pan" mode, tell it how much area you want to capture (so it can set the viewfinder resolution) then move the camera back and forth. It would "paint" the image on the viewfinder as you move the camera around--just keep moving the camera until the entire viewfinder is "painted".
Wouldn't work very well for moving subjects, but there is nothing technical to this--it's just software. (Well, you have to be pretty good at keeping the lens at the exact same point then rotating around it, otherwise you'd get distortions--but nothing worse than conventional panorams).
What I need of purchases is:
A hardcopy, something that is archivable and won't get lost.
Cross platform--if I get to work and want to play music, don't make me register, just make it work.
Standardized format--No protection. I don't want to have to load any specific player.
Physical Proof of Purchase--Something I can hold in my hand. A permanent license that doesn't go away if I lose a hard disk.
And even if a download could do all these things, it had better cost less than physical media otherwise I'm not risking entering a credit card number into a computer where we don't have ANY virus detection software that can be completely trusted to detect rootkits and keyloggers. I prefer trusting my credit card to the crackheads at the local record shop.
I totally agree, moreover, Google's defining "racist speech" themselves would be horrific, allowing a court to make the decision is the only way it would work.
I'd like to comment on the stories mention of google's "Don't be evil"... hmmm.. motto? goal?
I'm getting SO SICK of hearing people quote that whenever google does something they don't like. No corporation can be perfect all the time, and I have trouble believing that any corporation can maintain "Goodness" over a period of decades, but at least Google is trying--at least that's a stated goal.
Yet it seems that even though they don't advertise "Don't be evil" (It's just something a photographer picked up one day as far as I can tell), I've seen people use it to ridicule Google repeatedly--as though there was something innately offensive about trying to be good to other humans.
I really don't understand this.
There is one other thing going on here that I kind of do understand. It seems that people have a natural tendancy to hate popular things they weren't in on. You can see it all the time with Apple (iPod and Mac), Google, VolksWagons, MySpace, rap music, punk music, hell almost every genre of music, etc...
Although this tendancy seems to be natural and I believe exists to some degree in everyone, might I suggest that if some popular fad bothers you maybe you should get a little introspective about it.
It's not that all those "popular" things are the best possible, but generally they are popular because they are pretty good, and by being a "Hater", you are really only excluding yourself from something that's probably pretty cool.
I'm not sure just what causes this--I think shared hatered amoung a persons tight group of friends brings them closer together. Perhaps that also explains the christian/conservative hatered you see spewing from fox and people like Rush L. Perhaps the hatered binds their community in the same way hatered or love of VW's or rap might bind a small group of friends?
--- My favorite hobby: Working out my understanding of psychological concepts on slashdot.
I've been thinking for a while that the best way to take a decent photo would be to take a little 1-5 second movie with a wide-spread 1 mega pixel CCD then use the slight movements that you will always get with a hand-held camera to fill in the area between the pixels.
It occurs to me that if you stuck a camera out the window of a moving car driving down the street you have enough information to make an awesom 3-d panarama of that street (3-d because the moving view gives you the same effect as multiple cameras would for a still-shot). You should be able to see almost all the way around a object (if the camera is a fish-eye you should get very close to a 360 degree view of something that is fairly close to the car.
Video analysis like this and the ability to break live images from pairs of cameras into 3-d objects inside the computer will be the next computer revolution--possibly as significant as the internet revolution because it will allow computers to interact with people in the real world.
Many kids, esp. the children of conservatives actually want to have sex with what we'd call a sexual predator. Imagine these conservative parents running around trying to shield their children from everything in the world, and the children trying harder and harder to get into trouble--drugs, gay sex, whatever.
They can't stop their determined child--nobody can--so they go to the law. This is ineffective as well since there are so many other ways to reach your goal if you're determined to piss off your parents, or just differentiate yourself from them.
I think the best solution is gradually giving responsibilities over their lives to a child. Scale it so you start when they are 5 and by the time they hit 16, they have 95% control of their lives, 100% when they are 18. Around 10 anything that won't harm them for life should probably be in their control, at 15 anything that won't kill them...
If they are going to make bad decisions, let them make the decisions when they are 7 and not 17. At 7 you are caught stealing candy and slapped on the wrist--plus you get a really useful discussion with your parents, at 17 you get aids and die.
So, if you allow bots onto the net, we turn off your ISP. You then (quickly) figure out which customers are actually botted and block them. You are then allowed back onto the net, and your users (who are unhappy, but not as unhappy as the people who's credit card info they helped steal by running a bot) are helped back onto the net either through a decent virus tool or perhaps a full reinstall of the OS.
I realize this is painful and encumbering to a small ISP, but allowing that crap onto the net is REALLY hurting people and companies through DDOS blackmail threats and the like.
I realize there is nothing your ISP can do alone, it has to be a coordinated effort--it all has to stop at once.
He said an coordinated effort. Of course no one person can get anywhere, but if we just decide not to accept this, we start blocking IP ranges, force the ISPs to deal with their spammers and botnets--it wouldn't take long at all to shut down the entire problem (and 60% of the web). Then you just bring up clean PCs one at a time--forward their DNS to a page that can lead you through the process of cleaning out your PC and contains a list of services that will help.
Subsidize the creation of some decent anti-virus and service companies that can clean your computer remotely (Just don't build one nuke, that should take care of funding it for a few years)
Of course we can't take these steps proactively, humans are too short-sighted, but we WILL do something like this reactively, It's going to happen--just a matter of time.
So to say a pattern has a simpler implementation in another language means that you don't need to know it, understand it, understand when to use it and how?
The patterns aren't about how to implement something--they are all trivial to implement, I've yet to see one that I didn't create and implement myself before the books were even concieved of.
The big things about design patterns are that you have a common name for a pattern and some code smells to look for that indicate the need for a pattern. Because you have "Multi-dispatch polymorphism" available, did you use it? Did you know what smells indicated you should use it? Can you quickly communicate what it does without using the word "Visitor"? You using it in that paragraph communicated to me just what you were talking about, so you needed and used design patterns right there.
Okay, so because 3 patterns are somewhat implemented by the system, how is it not useful to know the names for those and the other dozens?
Design patterns are almost all obvious to a decent programmer--you probably invented them before you ever heard of them. Knowing design patterns means that you and I can discuss Iterators without redefining what they mean each time we talk to someone new.
How is that need replaced by these new languages?
Also, you say the need for "Design Patterns" is eliminated??? Every single one (is what that statement implies). How would you say the "immutable" pattern is no longer necessary? Simply to say that it's impossible to implement on a "New" language doesn't cut it.
How about the Observer pattern? You don't need that any more?
On top of that the biggest thing you learn from design patterns is bad code smells, and trust me you can write smelly code in ANY language.
I really wonder what your original attempt was? Either to dismiss java/c++ or design patterns or to hype "next gen" languages. Regardless I don't think you understand what design patterns do if you think they are deprecated by "new languages"
I remember hearing of 3d printers http://www.zcorp.com/products/printersdetail.asp?I D=1 on slashdot and couldn't imagine seeing a prototype in my lifetime. Now they're available off the shelf, just a few years later.
An article about hard disks lining up charges vertically instead of horizontally along the track preceded today's ~1tb hard drives.
I'm sure there are a half-dozen other examples I cant think of.
Why does dreaming make you so uncomfortable? It's what we do.
Perhaps we need a campaign like "Look for the Union Label"...
From what I've seen, products engineered 100% in the US should have significantly better quality, why not point that out?
I'm not really against Chinese outsourcing, but if there IS a quality difference in the end product, then that information could be vital to consumers.
Not that we have the best engineering consistently, but I've never seen a product made in the US released with such poor quality as some of the imports I've seen.
People will often do whatever they feel it takes to "Win", especially in America.
On top of that, the current mindset of the incumbents is that it will be the end of the country if the Dems win.
The Dems feel the same way.
Pretty much if either side doesn't do their best to cheat, they will be betraying their country (from their POV).
Because these circumstances aren't unique (or, I'm afraid, even rare), it's up to us to ensure that voting is as cheat-proof as possible.
The fact that there aren't currently riots in regards to these Diabold machines is really embarrassing. Honestly I think the ink on the finger system might be more reliable.
Actually, compared to many forms of energy creation, 30% is pretty high.
What I'd like to see is some programs that improve the ammount of surface area that is covered--maybe bring the cost down to 5% of what it is now, THEN you'd see solar take off--and that's what our governtment could be investing in.
Even if the government were to simply buy enough solar panels to cover the roofs of all the government buildings where weather permits, the quantity would drive down the prices and we'd conserve massive ammounts of fuel and taxpayer money.
Once the prices were lower, industry could start doing the same thing.
Then... Well I have 10 acres I'd love to cover with solar cells (if they weren't so expensive).
I guess the point is that the 30% efficency is not the issue here at all.
I don't really have any problems with any of your points, my point was that NAFTA was a republican issue (In America the corporations desired it, people not so much--few knew or cared, those that did though weren't for it because of the lack of controls on corporation). Are you really disagreeing with this?
Personally I think joining the trade of the entire world would be fine (I never had a problem with that part of NAFTA--my problem was how it "Slipped in" a corporate ability to export waste and poor conduct under the guise of a trade agreement).
The fact that you keep seeing arguments I'm not making is further evidence of my previous point.
Although I didn't read that speech too closely, I saw nothing indicating that more manufacturing plants from American companies had moved to contract in Canada than Mexico.
I'm EXTREMELY pro free-trade, and I'd be VERY pro NAFTA if it wasn't for the main reason it was passed--that corporations get to export waste and hire without the restrictions of the US and Canada. The rest is great, but not the reason it was passed here.
You realize that we are talking about the NORTH AMERICAN free trade agreement, right?... Most of the jobs displaced in the U.S. have gone to Canada
Although I don't have the figures, you appear to, so could you tell me where you learned that more jobs were going to Canada than Mexico so that they can pay their employees a higher minimum wage? If possible, could you also tell me what stupid businesses are doing this so I can be sure not to buy their stock?
What is insane about letting people buy and sell from people who speak a different language or have a different skin color or live on a different continent?
I personally have no problem with this at all. My problem is with what NAFTA actually DOES. It allows a company to open an office in Mexico with no pollution controls and very little worker protection. If it wasn't made for this, it would have had protections saying that a corporation could not have lower standards than required by its' home country.
The rest of your argument seems to be based on buying/selling which we already had and had nothing to do with NAFTA in reality, so I'll ignore it.
Democracy is not popular elections Democracy is not voting... If you have TRUE democracy...it would be very hard for the U.S. or anyone else to manipulate another country.
Wikipedia: Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have a vote or voice in shaping policy.
If you have issues with how the world views democracy (and it not being what you personally think it should be), I suggest you take it up with the 'pedia.
Actually I have to admit that the wikipedia goes on to say: More generally, "democratic" means that the system is set up so that people can participate with their own views, without being punished for expressing them or for organizing with like-minded citizens.
but that still doesn't say that democracies are fully informed or free from manipulation. They COULD be I suppose, but we can't even do THAT in America. Election favors here are purchased and sold as easily as a the favors of a cheap hooker.
It's not really worth it to say much more. You are a religious nut. I've spent a lot of time arguing with religious nuts. Here is how you identify a religious nut: A) They have a Primary Belief. The most common ones are:
Jesus died for your sins.
The Free Market is the ultimate system if the government would just let it be.
Apple makes ideal products and nothing else compares.
Hurting animals in any way is bad
The government doesn't have the right to tax us
Abortion is always wrong
Abortion is always right
(The list goes on)
B) The Primary Belief cannot be challenged, they will invent ways to continue to believe even when faced with undeniable facts (Such as evolution or the fact that we had a nearly perfect free market in the 20's leading to the depression because it filtered all the money out of the lower classes, just like what's happening now as we move back towards a more free market)
C) They tend not to re-examine and challenge their beliefs. They might think they do, perhaps in bible study they try to come up with scenarios that challenge the bible, but only ones they know they can defeat. A true and obvious challenge (Why is God such an asshat, How could Noah have put all the species we now know exist on his arc, and how did most marsupials then ONLY migrate to Australia, or how can a pure free market work when humans have the tendancy to use their superior position in business to destroy competitors rather than compete better) is generally ans
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked, energy required was a product of mass and velocity. http://www.1728.com/energy.htm
So a ship that HAD to reach a non-trivial escape velocity would take a lot more energy than something that could be slowly ratcheted. As I understand it, as you approach zero speed, you actually approach zero energy input (I may be wrong about this).
Also, a ship must contain its own fuel, an elevator could be powered by electricity or some matter being sent up the tether. This requirement is a HUGE percentage of the total fuel requirement (and the new fuel required to lift the mass of the fuel must have it's own fuel...)
Also, compared to today's shuttles, it would be incredibly quick (From the planning stage, how long do you think it takes to send a ship into space now? Isn't it still years? Even if it were 6 months which I seriously doubt, a lift would be much quicker)
>> and it STILL takes just as much actual energy to put anything in orbit...just it does so pathetically slowly.
So, no it doesn't take as much energy (but your solution does), and it's not terribly slow (your solution requires a more sturdy construction and would probably be much slower)
I think your whole theory is quite incorrect.
Might I put fort that perhaps you have become religiously attached to this laser idea and are adjusting, creating and/or forgetting facts to match the way you would like to see the situation? This happens to many people constantly (esp conservatives because it's the nature and definition of conservatism to hang on to concepts and not challenge them)--I'm not trying to be rude, just making a suggestion that you challenge your personal precepts a bit more.
No, it's never been worth it. If you are trying to decide what to do, and think that maybe you'll try programming--just save us all a lot of time and effort and do something else.
How come you never see people saying "Should I go into Painting", or "Maybe I'll try Music as a career". When it comes to careers that are art, including programming, If you don't KNOW that's what you are going to do, then you're just not going to do it well enough to make anyone happy.
When you wonder why virtually all software is buggy, full of delays, poorly designed and shoddily implemented--it's generally because someone is doing a job rather than creating art.
So then this is one of those cases where "if you have to ask, the answer is NO".
Give up two hours of your time. Vote by mail and as you are going through the choices, check out the stuff in the voters pamphlet. It's pretty informative and usually shows both sides of the issue fairly well.
If you have questions after the pamphlet, hit the internet and see if you can find more.
That said, when it comes down to voting for candidates, I recommend voting for independents whenever you get the chance. It's not really throwing away your vote (the only way to do that would be to vote for a republican or a democrat), but it is showing support for opening up of the current one-party system (the corporate party). If they get 5 percent of the vote, they start to get matching funding which will help them compete.
No, but close.
Tell yourself that if the software you are writing is not secure, you will lose everything, and then tell all the people up the chain of command and all your customers the exact same thing.
THEN it'll automatically make itself bug-free.
Really good point, although I'd be totally in for $180. If course then they would need 200,000 salse instead of 100,000 (I assume they are using the profit to get the company rolling)
Also, if it's really a problem, try to work something out with Google. Maybe they could buy one for each employee or each employee's kid or something...
That was my first thought. It zooms in exactly like Google Earth. That means there is an application on the PC to render it exactly like google earth--it also means that the pictures that compose it are downloaded from the web dynamically, exactly like google earth.
Anyone want to calculate the number of pixels available in Google earth?
Also, why can't cameras do live panning yet? In order to create a large photo you should be able to put it into "pan" mode, tell it how much area you want to capture (so it can set the viewfinder resolution) then move the camera back and forth. It would "paint" the image on the viewfinder as you move the camera around--just keep moving the camera until the entire viewfinder is "painted".
Wouldn't work very well for moving subjects, but there is nothing technical to this--it's just software. (Well, you have to be pretty good at keeping the lens at the exact same point then rotating around it, otherwise you'd get distortions--but nothing worse than conventional panorams).
Wow. Why would anyone buy online?
What I need of purchases is:
A hardcopy, something that is archivable and won't get lost.
Cross platform--if I get to work and want to play music, don't make me register, just make it work.
Standardized format--No protection. I don't want to have to load any specific player.
Physical Proof of Purchase--Something I can hold in my hand. A permanent license that doesn't go away if I lose a hard disk.
And even if a download could do all these things, it had better cost less than physical media otherwise I'm not risking entering a credit card number into a computer where we don't have ANY virus detection software that can be completely trusted to detect rootkits and keyloggers. I prefer trusting my credit card to the crackheads at the local record shop.
I totally agree, moreover, Google's defining "racist speech" themselves would be horrific, allowing a court to make the decision is the only way it would work.
I'd like to comment on the stories mention of google's "Don't be evil"... hmmm.. motto? goal?
I'm getting SO SICK of hearing people quote that whenever google does something they don't like. No corporation can be perfect all the time, and I have trouble believing that any corporation can maintain "Goodness" over a period of decades, but at least Google is trying--at least that's a stated goal.
Yet it seems that even though they don't advertise "Don't be evil" (It's just something a photographer picked up one day as far as I can tell), I've seen people use it to ridicule Google repeatedly--as though there was something innately offensive about trying to be good to other humans.
I really don't understand this.
There is one other thing going on here that I kind of do understand. It seems that people have a natural tendancy to hate popular things they weren't in on. You can see it all the time with Apple (iPod and Mac), Google, VolksWagons, MySpace, rap music, punk music, hell almost every genre of music, etc...
Although this tendancy seems to be natural and I believe exists to some degree in everyone, might I suggest that if some popular fad bothers you maybe you should get a little introspective about it.
It's not that all those "popular" things are the best possible, but generally they are popular because they are pretty good, and by being a "Hater", you are really only excluding yourself from something that's probably pretty cool.
I'm not sure just what causes this--I think shared hatered amoung a persons tight group of friends brings them closer together. Perhaps that also explains the christian/conservative hatered you see spewing from fox and people like Rush L. Perhaps the hatered binds their community in the same way hatered or love of VW's or rap might bind a small group of friends?
---
My favorite hobby: Working out my understanding of psychological concepts on slashdot.
I've been thinking for a while that the best way to take a decent photo would be to take a little 1-5 second movie with a wide-spread 1 mega pixel CCD then use the slight movements that you will always get with a hand-held camera to fill in the area between the pixels.
It occurs to me that if you stuck a camera out the window of a moving car driving down the street you have enough information to make an awesom 3-d panarama of that street (3-d because the moving view gives you the same effect as multiple cameras would for a still-shot). You should be able to see almost all the way around a object (if the camera is a fish-eye you should get very close to a 360 degree view of something that is fairly close to the car.
Video analysis like this and the ability to break live images from pairs of cameras into 3-d objects inside the computer will be the next computer revolution--possibly as significant as the internet revolution because it will allow computers to interact with people in the real world.
Many kids, esp. the children of conservatives actually want to have sex with what we'd call a sexual predator. Imagine these conservative parents running around trying to shield their children from everything in the world, and the children trying harder and harder to get into trouble--drugs, gay sex, whatever.
They can't stop their determined child--nobody can--so they go to the law. This is ineffective as well since there are so many other ways to reach your goal if you're determined to piss off your parents, or just differentiate yourself from them.
I think the best solution is gradually giving responsibilities over their lives to a child. Scale it so you start when they are 5 and by the time they hit 16, they have 95% control of their lives, 100% when they are 18. Around 10 anything that won't harm them for life should probably be in their control, at 15 anything that won't kill them...
If they are going to make bad decisions, let them make the decisions when they are 7 and not 17. At 7 you are caught stealing candy and slapped on the wrist--plus you get a really useful discussion with your parents, at 17 you get aids and die.
So, if you allow bots onto the net, we turn off your ISP. You then (quickly) figure out which customers are actually botted and block them. You are then allowed back onto the net, and your users (who are unhappy, but not as unhappy as the people who's credit card info they helped steal by running a bot) are helped back onto the net either through a decent virus tool or perhaps a full reinstall of the OS.
I realize this is painful and encumbering to a small ISP, but allowing that crap onto the net is REALLY hurting people and companies through DDOS blackmail threats and the like.
I realize there is nothing your ISP can do alone, it has to be a coordinated effort--it all has to stop at once.
Are you implying that you NEED DRM to prevent modifications to the Kernel?
It's probably a good idea to lock down the kernel of your OS with a password, but how does that imply a need for DRM? (Or is DRM the new checksum?)
He said an coordinated effort. Of course no one person can get anywhere, but if we just decide not to accept this, we start blocking IP ranges, force the ISPs to deal with their spammers and botnets--it wouldn't take long at all to shut down the entire problem (and 60% of the web). Then you just bring up clean PCs one at a time--forward their DNS to a page that can lead you through the process of cleaning out your PC and contains a list of services that will help.
Subsidize the creation of some decent anti-virus and service companies that can clean your computer remotely (Just don't build one nuke, that should take care of funding it for a few years)
Of course we can't take these steps proactively, humans are too short-sighted, but we WILL do something like this reactively, It's going to happen--just a matter of time.
Sometimes I think it's more appropriate to allow people to wallow in their own stupidity.
--
"Stay The Course"
Captain Edward John Smith -- 11:38 April 14, 1912
When I saw it, it was basic research--college stuff. Trust me, it happens. If it's good, it gets into a product. Just wait.
So to say a pattern has a simpler implementation in another language means that you don't need to know it, understand it, understand when to use it and how?
The patterns aren't about how to implement something--they are all trivial to implement, I've yet to see one that I didn't create and implement myself before the books were even concieved of.
The big things about design patterns are that you have a common name for a pattern and some code smells to look for that indicate the need for a pattern. Because you have "Multi-dispatch polymorphism" available, did you use it? Did you know what smells indicated you should use it? Can you quickly communicate what it does without using the word "Visitor"? You using it in that paragraph communicated to me just what you were talking about, so you needed and used design patterns right there.
Okay, so because 3 patterns are somewhat implemented by the system, how is it not useful to know the names for those and the other dozens?
Design patterns are almost all obvious to a decent programmer--you probably invented them before you ever heard of them. Knowing design patterns means that you and I can discuss Iterators without redefining what they mean each time we talk to someone new.
How is that need replaced by these new languages?
Also, you say the need for "Design Patterns" is eliminated??? Every single one (is what that statement implies). How would you say the "immutable" pattern is no longer necessary? Simply to say that it's impossible to implement on a "New" language doesn't cut it.
How about the Observer pattern? You don't need that any more?
On top of that the biggest thing you learn from design patterns is bad code smells, and trust me you can write smelly code in ANY language.
I really wonder what your original attempt was? Either to dismiss java/c++ or design patterns or to hype "next gen" languages. Regardless I don't think you understand what design patterns do if you think they are deprecated by "new languages"
I remember hearing of 3d printers http://www.zcorp.com/products/printersdetail.asp?I D=1 on slashdot and couldn't imagine seeing a prototype in my lifetime. Now they're available off the shelf, just a few years later.
An article about hard disks lining up charges vertically instead of horizontally along the track preceded today's ~1tb hard drives.
I'm sure there are a half-dozen other examples I cant think of.
Why does dreaming make you so uncomfortable? It's what we do.
What an interesting statement.
Seriously? No design patterns are useful in "higher level" languages?
Could you please elaborate?
I was talking about software mostly. If a company does any outsourcing they can't use the 100% made in america seal.
If there is a quality difference, people will soon start to notice--if not, no real harm done.
Perhaps we need a campaign like "Look for the Union Label"...
From what I've seen, products engineered 100% in the US should have significantly better quality, why not point that out?
I'm not really against Chinese outsourcing, but if there IS a quality difference in the end product, then that information could be vital to consumers.
Not that we have the best engineering consistently, but I've never seen a product made in the US released with such poor quality as some of the imports I've seen.
People will often do whatever they feel it takes to "Win", especially in America.
On top of that, the current mindset of the incumbents is that it will be the end of the country if the Dems win.
The Dems feel the same way.
Pretty much if either side doesn't do their best to cheat, they will be betraying their country (from their POV).
Because these circumstances aren't unique (or, I'm afraid, even rare), it's up to us to ensure that voting is as cheat-proof as possible.
The fact that there aren't currently riots in regards to these Diabold machines is really embarrassing. Honestly I think the ink on the finger system might be more reliable.
Actually, compared to many forms of energy creation, 30% is pretty high.
What I'd like to see is some programs that improve the ammount of surface area that is covered--maybe bring the cost down to 5% of what it is now, THEN you'd see solar take off--and that's what our governtment could be investing in.
Even if the government were to simply buy enough solar panels to cover the roofs of all the government buildings where weather permits, the quantity would drive down the prices and we'd conserve massive ammounts of fuel and taxpayer money.
Once the prices were lower, industry could start doing the same thing.
Then... Well I have 10 acres I'd love to cover with solar cells (if they weren't so expensive).
I guess the point is that the 30% efficency is not the issue here at all.
I don't really have any problems with any of your points, my point was that NAFTA was a republican issue (In America the corporations desired it, people not so much--few knew or cared, those that did though weren't for it because of the lack of controls on corporation). Are you really disagreeing with this?
Personally I think joining the trade of the entire world would be fine (I never had a problem with that part of NAFTA--my problem was how it "Slipped in" a corporate ability to export waste and poor conduct under the guise of a trade agreement).
The fact that you keep seeing arguments I'm not making is further evidence of my previous point.
Although I didn't read that speech too closely, I saw nothing indicating that more manufacturing plants from American companies had moved to contract in Canada than Mexico.
I'm EXTREMELY pro free-trade, and I'd be VERY pro NAFTA if it wasn't for the main reason it was passed--that corporations get to export waste and hire without the restrictions of the US and Canada. The rest is great, but not the reason it was passed here.
Although I don't have the figures, you appear to, so could you tell me where you learned that more jobs were going to Canada than Mexico so that they can pay their employees a higher minimum wage? If possible, could you also tell me what stupid businesses are doing this so I can be sure not to buy their stock?
I personally have no problem with this at all. My problem is with what NAFTA actually DOES. It allows a company to open an office in Mexico with no pollution controls and very little worker protection. If it wasn't made for this, it would have had protections saying that a corporation could not have lower standards than required by its' home country.
The rest of your argument seems to be based on buying/selling which we already had and had nothing to do with NAFTA in reality, so I'll ignore it.
Wikipedia: Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have a vote or voice in shaping policy.
If you have issues with how the world views democracy (and it not being what you personally think it should be), I suggest you take it up with the 'pedia.
Actually I have to admit that the wikipedia goes on to say:
More generally, "democratic" means that the system is set up so that people can participate with their own views, without being punished for expressing them or for organizing with like-minded citizens.
but that still doesn't say that democracies are fully informed or free from manipulation. They COULD be I suppose, but we can't even do THAT in America. Election favors here are purchased and sold as easily as a the favors of a cheap hooker.
It's not really worth it to say much more. You are a religious nut. I've spent a lot of time arguing with religious nuts. Here is how you identify a religious nut:
A) They have a Primary Belief. The most common ones are:
Jesus died for your sins.
The Free Market is the ultimate system if the government would just let it be.
Apple makes ideal products and nothing else compares.
Hurting animals in any way is bad
The government doesn't have the right to tax us
Abortion is always wrong
Abortion is always right
(The list goes on)
B) The Primary Belief cannot be challenged, they will invent ways to continue to believe even when faced with undeniable facts (Such as evolution or the fact that we had a nearly perfect free market in the 20's leading to the depression because it filtered all the money out of the lower classes, just like what's happening now as we move back towards a more free market)
C) They tend not to re-examine and challenge their beliefs. They might think they do, perhaps in bible study they try to come up with scenarios that challenge the bible, but only ones they know they can defeat. A true and obvious challenge (Why is God such an asshat, How could Noah have put all the species we now know exist on his arc, and how did most marsupials then ONLY migrate to Australia, or how can a pure free market work when humans have the tendancy to use their superior position in business to destroy competitors rather than compete better) is generally ans