The main advantage is that you can run pre-existing MATLAB code, often without any modification whatsoever. When composing new code, I certainly prefer python/scipy. Also, many engineers and scientists know MATLAB because it is pervasive in industry, but do not have experience with Python.

Christ Almighty, don't be such a douche if you want people to appreciate your point. You just mocked the OP, who posted a valid - and I suspect common - point of view, while providing nothing but a laundry list of vague, unverifiable comparisons. I don't doubt you know what you're talking about, but dispose of the mocking tone and add some meat to your argument

folks who are able to generate original artistic material are much more rare than those who are able to perform it, who are in turn much more rare than those who are able to record/edit/package it. the value of a product really shouldn't be posed in terms of the number of people required to produce it. ostensibly, since you are posting here, you're a relatively highly paid technical professional - do you expect to compensated just as the bag boy at the grocery?

Where did you read that free market capitalism was a founding principle of the US? The constitution? Declaration of Independence?

agree with your post, but can't refrain from humbly offering this correction to your sig: for all *intents* and purposes. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=For%20all%20intensive%20purposes

Or you can put the car into neutral... or cut the power entirely (yes, both these things work, even with push button ignition. I tested both on a country road shortly after the initial floor mat recall). In emergency situations, it's critical to keep your head together and recognize your options.

I don't know how many "peak oilers" are also "PETA-loving Peak Oil blabbering tree huggers", but most of the reasonable arguments for peak oil I have read mention that exact point early on - that oil is used to produce almost everything we consume, including whatever needs to be manufactured to save our collective bacon. See, that point actually compounds the problem. So pointing it out actually *strengthens" their arguments. Sheesh,

that heat is a clear indication of the amount of solar energy available. allowing it to convert to heat before capturing it would tremendously lossy. I also can't imagine how one might capture the heat energy effectively while still allowing traffic to pass over the road, so I'm skeptical about "a lot less expensive"

it's called the throwbot http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=321

I was simply amazed to see this cloud formation until I read about the rocket launch at Vandenberg earlier that evening http://www.flickr.com/photos/peaqoud/2152740519/in/set-72157601528841883/

About 10 minutes ago, and multiple times every day.

Ah, that makes sense. thanks. Still, it seems like a common enough issue to at least warrant a "labs" option to reject such self-addressed messages from non-gmail servers.

At least 75% of my spam is addressed as though it was sent from *my* gmail account. Of course, it's easy to set up a filter to reject all such spam, but then I lose the ability to send reminder messages to myself. Seems like it would be extraordinarily simple for google to outright reject messages that claim to be sent from their servers that in fact were not. I sure wish they would!

Perfect answer. I've worked with several folks like Jim over the years, and consider myself to be in the same vein. Yes, we can and will write documentation if we have management that requires it. But we'd much rather be having fun solving problems, and wise management will make sure that is what we are doing most of the time. Right now I work for a very small research company - the entire tech staff is two engineers (not "software engineers" - computer vision & robotics) plus two programmers. Our code is messy and poorly commented with no documentation - we get away with this because it is research grade code, and because our team is so small. We (the engineers) understand it just fine. The poor programmers who must port it to other languages simply have to put the blinders on and copy the functionality. We could document the code to death, but that wouldn't be any substitute for the fundamental knowledge in physics, statistics and algorithms required to *really* understand the code. When and if we grow into a production environment where many people will have to support (and understand) the code, I trust our management will be wise enough to hire other folks to do the bulk of the documentation, with help as necessary from the engineers. Because there will always be more profitable things for us to be doing, which we actually enjoy.

Amen! The phrase "Moore's Law" irritates me to no end. I understand that it is the common vernacular, but it is almost always misused here on /. "Moore's Law" was simply an observation that has remained remarkably consistent over time. And it had nothing to do with cost or "computing power" - just that the number of transistors per unit area double roughly every 18 months. There is no "Law" to be followed or violated! Sheesh!