Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Disable moving phones at the tower (Score 1) 364

by mikem170 (#47876335) Attached to: Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled

I think that the best idea in this sub-thread is that in a post by funwithBSD, an immobilizer.(Presumably similar to a breathalyzer. If you are convicted of texting-while-driving you must put a device in your car that will disable the car/cell phone of the car occupant. A cell phoen app won't do the trick, but maybe a car-based device would.)

I guess your post and my post prove how typically polarizing these cell phone issues are. I am not a nanny state fan, but I am infuriated by how stupid and inattentive people are hurting others and the toothless laws that currently exist. I don't have a cell phone glued to my ear and would rather not be wacked in traffic by someone who does. Other people see it differently, and flip if they can't use their cell phone everywhere all the time.

The same issue comes up if a private party wants to block cell phones in their movie theater, for the benefit of other patrons. Half the of everyone loves the idea, the other half hate it.

I am shocked at the scope of the distracted driving problem and that nothing effective is being done to deter and punish violators. And I'm concerned that the problem will probably get worse.

Comment: Re:Disable moving phones at the tower (Score 1) 364

by mikem170 (#47872525) Attached to: Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled

I looked it up a few months ago, a bit over half as many people are killed each year by distracted drivers as by alcohol involved accidents, which amounts to about 35000 people per year (about 60000 per year die in alcohol related accidents, at least according to MADD). Fun fact, removing health related deaths (smoking, heart disease, etc.), it's the number two cause of death in the US, behind drunk driving. Yup, more people are killed by idiots not paying attention while driving than by firearms. Impressive, since firearms are designed to destroy things.

I think the statistics above, if accurate, indicate that we would be justified having the cell companies knock down all voice and data on moving cell phones.

My two cents: GPS apps can sync data before you are rolling. You can pull over to download new data, or call/text someone. You can read a book on the train or listen/watch any of your local data (32+ gigs, right?). I don't think that anybody whining about not being connected/addicted while a passenger outweighs the loss of life. That's just as wrong as me justifying a road trip after six beers. You'all didn't have a cell phone 20 years ago!

Comment: Re:Disable moving phones at the tower (Score 1) 364

by mikem170 (#47871305) Attached to: Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled
Couldn't the cell phone companies disable cell phones that are moving? I do wonder what is the accident/injury rate due to cell phones and distracted drivers. Based on what I see on our roads I'd be fine with disabling every moving cell phone in the country. Would solve a lot of problems and annoyances, and we all survived it before.

Comment: Re:Yes you are (Score 1) 634

by friedmud (#46964261) Attached to: Why Scientists Are Still Using FORTRAN in 2014

You can install PETSc without a Fortran compiler at all. Change that --download-f-blas-lapack to --download-c-blas-lapack and you're good to go...

In fact... MOOSE works on platforms without a Fortran compiler at all... although we generally recommend that you have one (so that you can still link in any legacy routines you've written in Fortran).

I'm not specifically against Fortran... I was just trying to say that most new computational science development at the National Labs is NOT being done in it. We've moved on...

Comment: Re:Because C and C++ multidimensional arrays suck (Score 0) 634

by friedmud (#46964221) Attached to: Why Scientists Are Still Using FORTRAN in 2014

Easily fixed with libraries like Eigen ( http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/ind... ) and many others.

Most of the better "frameworks" out there come with their own proxy objects for multidemensional arrays (like http://libmesh.sourceforge.net... )

Multidmensional arrays haven't been an issue (especially in C++) for quite a long time...

Comment: Re:We're Not (Score 5, Insightful) 634

by friedmud (#46964201) Attached to: Why Scientists Are Still Using FORTRAN in 2014

Firstly... 10^-15 is WAY beyond what most scientific codes care about. Most nonlinear finite-element codes generally shoot for convergence tolerances between 1e-5 and 1e-8. Most of the problems are just too hard (read: incredibly nonlinear) to solve to anything beyond that. Further, 1e-8 is generally WAY beyond the physical engineering parameters for the problem. Beyond that level we either can't measure the inputs, have uncertainty about material properties, can't perfectly represent the geometry, have discretization error etc., etc. Who cares if you can reproduce the exact same numbers down to 1e-15 when your inputs have uncertainty above 1e-3??

Secondly... lots of the best computational scientists in the world would disagree:

http://www.openfoam.org/docs/u...
http://libmesh.sourceforge.net...
http://www.dealii.org/
http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/ind...
http://trilinos.sandia.gov/

I could go on... but you're just VERY wrong... and there's no reason to spend more time on you...

Comment: Re:Why is anyone still using C++ in 2014? (Score 1) 634

by friedmud (#46964161) Attached to: Why Scientists Are Still Using FORTRAN in 2014

Not everyone needs to know all of the quirks of C++ to use it. My project ( http://mooseframework.org/ ) does all of the nasty C++ stuff under the hood so that we can expose a very straightforward interface to non-computer-scientists.

It's working out well so far.

Object-oriented is still a good paradigm until the functional language people get everything figured out and there are enough computational science libraries written in functional languages. And if you want to do object-oriented and you still want to be fairly close to the metal for performance reasons then C++ is a good choice.

There are people that do object-oriented with C like the PETSc team ( http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/ )... and they have good reasons for doing so... but the result isn't necessarily less imposing to the uninitiated than C++...

Comment: We're Not (Score 1, Interesting) 634

by friedmud (#46964121) Attached to: Why Scientists Are Still Using FORTRAN in 2014

I saw this link bait the other day...

We're NOT using Fortran anymore...

Many of us at the National Labs do modern, object-oriented C/C++... Like the project I'm in charge of: http://www.mooseframework.org/

There are whole labs that have completely expunged Fortran in favor of C++... Like Sandia (http://trilinos.sandia.gov) who actually went through a period in the late 90s and early 2000s where they systematically replaced all of their largest Fortan computational science codes with C++.

Those places that don't use C++ use C like the awesome PETSc library from Argonne ( http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/ ) which actually employs an object-oriented scheme in C.

The big name modern codes that are getting run on the biggest machines are generally done in C and C++.

I don't see that situation changing anytime soon as there is simply a massive amount of C and C++ libraries that will continue to provide the engine for tomorrows codes. The trend i see happening most often is utilizing C and C++ libraries with Python glue for everything doesn't need raw speed.... I think that trend will continue.

...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.

Working...