I have had the hardest time looking up economic data on Wolfram Alpha. I hope this reference will let me figure out the proper syntax.
FRED doesn't have the data you need?
Wolfram Language
111–120 of 132 posts
Re: Wolfram Language
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, what? Jobs didn't create technology, he sold it to people (and did that very well). Before you reply, consider that I was there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer ) and I knew Jobs personally. I watched how he operated. He was very good at what he did, but he was a promoter, not a creator, of technology -- technology created by others.
>>Jobs didn't create technology, he sold it to people I don't understand what you are trying to say. Selling technology is a great way to facilitate its progress. Or do you believe that technology just sells itself? I know that this is a forum primarily for developers (err, sorry, where are my manners... I meant creators ), but the fact is that most developers would not have jobs if salespeople did not sell the produ…
>> Jobs didn't create technology, he sold it to people
> I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Okay, let me spell it out for you -- here's the remark I was replying to:
>>> If you can't acknowledge Steve Jobs massive contributions to technological progress
Really, "massive"? Invention of the transistor massive? Design of the first computer massive? Design of basic computer algorithms and/or languages massive? Or, to be more specific, design anything massive? Well, in point of fact, no -- none of the above.
> ... but the fact is that most developers would not have jobs if salespeople did not sell the products they created.
Yes, and people who actually develop technology wouldn't be comfortable without people to sweep the floors and empty the wastebaskets. The question you need to ask yourself is which role is irreplaceable -- the creator of technology or the person who sells it?
Re: Wolfram Language
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, what? Jobs didn't create technology, he sold it to people (and did that very well). Before you reply, consider that I was there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer ) and I knew Jobs personally. I watched how he operated. He was very good at what he did, but he was a promoter, not a creator, of technology -- technology created by others.
Creating a collaborative organization to design, engineer, and massively produce this stuff is absolutely nothing to scoff at. Process is essential to modern human enterprise--ask any of the hundreds of endlessly delayed Kickstarter projects that routinely fail to turn a prototype into something that can be shipped. If this were simple, there would be many Apples run by many "promoters." Instead there is only one.
> Creating a collaborative organization to design, engineer, and massively produce this stuff is absolutely nothing to scoff at.
First, no one is scoffing. Second, which role is essential and which is replaceable? Steve Wozniak created computers and Steve Jobs sold them. There are ten salesmen for each person able to create something worth selling.
> If this were simple, there would be many Apples run by many "promoters." Instead there is only one.
Yes -- only one Apple, and only one Intel, and only one AMD, and only one Blackberry, and only one Tesla, and only one IBM, and only one Android. Shall I go on listing all the things there is only one of?
Re: Wolfram Language
#114How difficult is it to create an open source version, which is much better than wolfram alpha. Because, this kind of software is too powerful a system to allow one person or one organization to have full control over it ...
Re: Wolfram Language
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can't acknowledge Steve Jobs massive contributions to technological progress you're extremely confused about the history.
Wait, what? Jobs didn't create technology, he sold it to people (and did that very well). Before you reply, consider that I was there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer ) and I knew Jobs personally. I watched how he operated. He was very good at what he did, but he was a promoter, not a creator, of technology -- technology created by others.
>Wait, what? Jobs didn't create technology, he sold it to people
Technology has many levels. A cpu is a technology as is a touch sensitive panel -- but a specific arrangment of cpu and touch sensitive panel etc, is also technology. The one who makes decisions about how it should be made, also creates technology.
Apple also wrote their own software, and even designed their own chips and parts a lot of the time. And of course they also found lots of ingenious solutions to lots of engineering problems in creating smaller/more efficient/more battery power/etc devices.
So, what does "Jobs didn't create technology, he sold it to people" mean? Isn't iWork techology for example? Or you mean, he wasn't a coder or engineer, he was the head of the company making it? Well, that's true, but duh!
Re: Wolfram Language
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm trying to figure out how VHDL fits in that list. It's essentially a spec in itself, only for hardware rather than software, is it not?
It's a language, it's formally specified (by the IEEE), and it has no preeminent reference implementation. Its domain is irrelevant to the assertion I countered.
Whereas Wolfram isn't. I'm trying to understand the analogy or how does this contradict my assertion, if that was the point at all.
Re: Wolfram Language
#117Re: Wolfram Language
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creating a collaborative organization to design, engineer, and massively produce this stuff is absolutely nothing to scoff at. Process is essential to modern human enterprise--ask any of the hundreds of endlessly delayed Kickstarter projects that routinely fail to turn a prototype into something that can be shipped. If this were simple, there would be many Apples run by many "promoters." Instead there is only one.
> Creating a collaborative organization to design, engineer, and massively produce this stuff is absolutely nothing to scoff at. First, no one is scoffing. Second, which role is essential and which is replaceable? Steve Wozniak created computers and Steve Jobs sold them. There are ten salesmen for each person able to create something worth selling. > If this were simple, there would be many Apples run by many "promot…
What I mean by that is that there is no company in the computer industry that owns so much of the stack as Apple does. And shepherding such an integrated company through one of the biggest tech booms in history is nothing to relegate to mere salesmanship.
Re: Wolfram Language
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, what? Jobs didn't create technology, he sold it to people (and did that very well). Before you reply, consider that I was there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer ) and I knew Jobs personally. I watched how he operated. He was very good at what he did, but he was a promoter, not a creator, of technology -- technology created by others.
> Wait, what? Jobs didn't create technology, he sold it to people Technology has many levels. A cpu is a technology as is a touch sensitive panel -- but a specific arrangment of cpu and touch sensitive panel etc, is also technology. The one who makes decisions about how it should be made, also creates technology. Apple also wrote their own software, and even designed their own chips and parts a lot of the time. And o…
> Technology has many levels. A cpu is a technology as is a touch sensitive panel -- but a specific arrangment of cpu and touch sensitive panel etc, is also technology.
We're not discussing the existence of technology, we're discussing the creation of technology. If this distinction were not important, anyone who acquired a computer could claim to be its creator. If this distinction were not important, someone who put a computer in a box would be equal to someone who invented binary arithmetic.
> So, what does "Jobs didn't create technology, he sold it to people" mean?
It means someone else had the education and creativity to invent something for Steve Jobs to sell, to call "fantastic" to crowds of eager consumers, to import into his reality distortion field. The same reality distortion field that makes you think selling equals creating.
> Or you mean, he wasn't a coder or engineer, he was the head of the company making it? Well, that's true, but duh!
So that's your argument? Now I understand why you have the views you do.
Re: Wolfram Language
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Creating a collaborative organization to design, engineer, and massively produce this stuff is absolutely nothing to scoff at. First, no one is scoffing. Second, which role is essential and which is replaceable? Steve Wozniak created computers and Steve Jobs sold them. There are ten salesmen for each person able to create something worth selling. > If this were simple, there would be many Apples run by many "promot…
What I mean by that is that there is no company in the computer industry that owns so much of the stack as Apple does. And shepherding such an integrated company through one of the biggest tech booms in history is nothing to relegate to mere salesmanship.
> And shepherding such an integrated company through one of the biggest tech booms in history is nothing to relegate to mere salesmanship.
In fact, that's a perfect place for a salesman. Steve Jobs proves it -- he didn't design the products that Apple sold, he sold them to the public.
Henry Ford didn't invent or design cars, he sold them. Thomas J. Watson didn't invent the computer, he sold computers. James McNerney Jr. (Boeing chairman) isn't an aerodynamic engineer, he sells airplanes to eager customers.
The reason for this reverence for salesmen is because of a peculiarity of American history and because of some deplorable defects in our educational system. It's because Americans think Willy Loman was the hero in "Death of a Salesman".