Most kids don't want the sort of games sold at GOG. It's about 90% really old stuff. I only play it out of nostalgia.

If you live in a hydro state, electricity is even cheaper (I think 6 or 7 cpkwh).

With shopping and 6 month contracts (instead of 3 year), you can get 8.3 cpkwh right now.

Short contracts are cheap,
1-2 year are more expensive.
And 3 year are less expensive but more expensive than short term contracts.

To be honest, going to LED's is a much better payoff than solar power cells right now and will probably be for several more years. They all pay for themselves within 6 months. But you have to stick with the 3100k bulbs otherwise you get wierd shades of pink and orange or intense blue white (which will keep you up at night).

Because the price is set by the last 1%.

If we can get 99% of our oil out of the ground for $40 per barrel and 1% of our oil out of the ground for $100 per barrel- then every barrel sells is if it cost $100 per barrel to get out of the ground.

And that's just in the united states. Europe also has a similar size fleet of electric vehicles.

And in Europe, for instance, while total petroleum consumption averaged over 15.3 million barrels per day in 2009, it was under 14.3 million in 2013, and has dropped further since.

We get 19 gallons of gasoline per barrel so that's so 465,000 fewer gallons of oil here (and another 465,000 fewer gallons of oil in europe) translates to 48,000 barrels a day of oil that used to be needed that isn't needed any more.

Totally- not at all. But part of the reason for lower demand? Sure.

I'm sure there are many components to the lower demand and the higher supply.

Three are roughly 600,000 to 700,000 hybrid electric cars (so about 325,000 gallons a day of gasoline not used) and about 70,000 purely electric cars (so about 140,000 gallons a day of gasoline not used). So purely electric and electric/hybrid cars have reduced demand for gasoline by roughly 465,000 gallons of gasoline per day.

What is actual electricity in Hawaii now? I was told 27 cents by a Hawaiian on another discussion board-- it sounded really high but I figured imported coal/oil or something was a factor.

If you were paying attention, these Environmental Strawmen you are railing against are just as pissed at th e current occupant as they were at President Cheney.

4 years after you bought it, it was up to 500 mile range and getting 50 mpg.

The range increases must partially also translate to the "refill cost" so it's gotten less expensive to drive over time.

Impressed-- range of electric cars was the main challenge factor (until the recent gasoline price drop).

Electric at 12c/kwh runs about 1/4 the cost of gasoline at $3.50 ($3.50/100 miles vs $14/100 miles). My electricity runs 10.3/kwh and houston gasoline is down to $1.99 here (Waxahachi has $1.91 gasoline as of 12/21).

So about $3/100 miles electric and $8/100 miles gasoline right now.

Apparently you do NOT want electric cars in Hawaii (something like 27c/wkh).

It doesn't take many electric cars to kill 1% of oil demand and cut $40 to $50 per barrel off the top price for a barrel of oil.

If the women who are being frightened away from STEM careers by the disgusting American Pig male programmer hegemony, Just wait until they experience the way some of these other countries male programmers act toward women.

Whether CS education is appropriate to all people who do computed-assisted technical work is very irrelevant to me since practical forces in real life simply solve that issue.

The problem I care about is a problem I seen in CS for real. I've met quite a few CS grads who don't know who Knuth, Lamport, Liskov, Hoare Tarjan, o Dijkstra are.

If you (the generic CS grad) do not know who they are, how the hell do you know about basic CS things like routing algorithms, pre and post conditions, data structures, you know, the very basic shit that is supposed to be the bread and butter of CS????

It is ok not to know these things and these people if you are a Computer Engineer, MIS or Network/Telecomm engineer (to a degree dependent on what your job expects from you.)

But if you are Computer Scientist, my God, this is like hiring an Electrical Engineer who doesn't know who Maxwell was. It does not inspire a lot of confidence, does it?

Luckily for my country, most of people can be swayed by money. Big salary, and low taxes and houses with a big yard as still affordable for a professional.

Brain drain is vitally important to America's future, these ideological games being played by xenophobes and people with anti-immigration politics may result in some very serious long term consequences. (yes, I'm basically stating that we cheat to stay on top.)

A nation that is manufacturing less every year, and has zero growth in agriculture, but continues to have a significant population growth needs to have a plan for the future.

As for people who are worried we'll [continue to] hire armies of cheap labor under H1B visa program, I would much rather compete with a foreign worker who is located in the US, than compete with that same worker in his own country. At least he's paying taxes and rent here, and spending some of his money in the local economy. If they decide to apply for citizenship, I welcome them. We can complain about elections and jury duty together.

I'm not anti immigration, but it seems like sort of an inefficient system. I mean if 95 percent of great programmers aome from outside the US, does that mean we're for shit at programming, or does the rest of the world turn out programmers that aren't great too? If a non-us Citizen is already a geat programmer, there should be no problem getting him or her over here.

Oh wait......

THen we'd have to pay them what they are worth, and not rely on the indentured servant system.......

This is true, but it does not lead to what you are claiming. A data schema (in a very general sense that goes beyond relational schema or XML data schema or whatever) might or might not scale (either by poor design choice, or by design).

But that schema will depend on specific concepts and assumptions that will be best realized with a specific family of technologies (or even a single one.) It would be possible (but very hard and stupid) to try to implement a relational data schema with a document-oriented database. And it would be very painful to implement a flexible document-oriented system using a RDBMS.

A good design of each type of system would achieve most, if not all of the requirements desired for such a system, but they will make a significant number of platform and language support assumptions.

Design and architecture are not some ethereal things up in the clouds; they are meant to be rooted on very specific language and runtime constrains.

And since that is an undecidable problem, we know that will never occur (not without heuristics and constant human intervention, validation and verification.)

Yes, YOU have to work for it... using the appropriate levels of abstraction (be them run-times, frameworks, language features or any combination thereof.) Architecture and design are about constrains, about constraining the number of ways entire systems can be put into place within limited resources. That constrain alone dictates what language and platform features make architecture and design feasible.

I'm not sure what the OP intended by "constrain validation", so I would present my own interpretation. A constrain or set of constrains will indicate how much scalability or concurrency you need. Those constrains then become vital for describing the means for testing, validation and verification (after all, a requirement is only valid when it is testable and verifiable.)

I could architect a large-scale e-commerce site with strict fault-tolerance and consistency requirements. Great. Then, I can, in theory, implement it in assembler, or C... or with a higher-level language and platform.

Similarly, I can architect a distributed operating system. I could implemented in Java or natively compiled BASIC... or I could do it in C/C++.

Proper architectures for each problem will prescribe the constrains of the design (and the means for verification and validation), and each will be better served by specific languages and tools.

Any non-trivial architecture will have a direct dependency to a set of language features. And any set of language features will have a relation of economic feasibility to families of problem domains and related architectures.

I typically side with the camp that thinks concurrency and distribution (and other things like security or fault/partition tolerance) are application-specific problems because it is the set of application (or domain) specific requirements dictate how much or how little they require from each capability.

With that said, I disagree with this:

An application can only effectively address such challenges when using the appropriate levels of abstraction. And by *appropriate* we mean not just appropriate in the level of high (or low) level features, but also in the amount of resources that are required to construct a system with the right synergies between application and supporting (underlying) platforms.

For instance, having an actor model supported as a language feature help application domain developers exploit (or create) the necessary abstractions for concurrency far more economically than using an actor model developed from scratch (or as an add-on framework)... at least for applications whose concurrency requirements are best served with an actor model over more low-level constructs (locks and shared resources)

Or think fault-tolerance. A language that has concepts such as a valves as actual language or run-time features is far more valuable for developing certain classes of fault tolerance systems than languages or runtimes that do not have any (a reason why most systems are not equipped with any means of throttling to cope with partial failures.)

Resource-efficient realization of an application architecture into a design and implementation are highly dependent on the language and run-times of choice.

They didn't *give* shit. They *forced* it upon people without giving them a choice. Anyone who think this was benevolent or positive in any way is an idiot living ideological fallacies as if they were real, positive options. #fileitunderfuckyou

is the number of Astroturfer comments. I'd like to see some effort made to find and eliminate them.