We are presently able to build and train bigger neural nets than we can decode. That's all right. In comparison, many great buildings and structures were built for literally centuries before much of material physics was well understood.
Certain neural net architectures lend themselves very well to being well understood, for example convolutional neural nets.
Other neural network architectures are far less transparent, but lots of work is being done in that area. The main issues appears to be that current neural network architectures are simply too messy, based on heuristics and experience rather than derived from a higher-level theory that maps into the problem domain.
Fundamentally, it's all statistics, and stats are messy. Just look at the ongoing debates between Frequentists and Bayesians. This entire field still has lots of growing-up to do.
What's truly amazing is how useful neural nets are without a deep understanding of precisely how and why.
There are many, many PhDs ready and waiting for those willing to wade in and help move things along.
The GM CEO view is a very common one: You can only get perfect data from perfect sensors, and Tesla's sensors are far from perfect.
That view is common,but it is incorrect from two separate perspectives: 1) There is no such thing as a perfect sensor. At best there's "close enough", defined as the point at which more money does no good. 2) The use of multiple sensors, and multiple kinds of sensors, creates a whole that is far greater than the sum of its imperfect parts.
The problem then becomes not just getting this data from one special sensor, but getting all the data we need from a set of imperfect sensors.
This is called "sensor fusion". At a simple level, it makes sense that two cheap radar sensors ought to be able to create better data than a single sensor costing twice as much, because each of the two sensors can be used to check and improve the other. And combining radar and ultrasonic sensors can provide data that neither can provide alone, no matter how good the individual sensors are.
But sensor fusion also works the other way, letting us peer deeply inside our cheap and imperfect sensors. Sensor fusion lets us dynamically perform characterizations and calibrations of imperfect sensors that greatly enhance the usability of their data.
Sensor fusion also adds robustness to the system: Failure of a big, expensive sensor can take down the entire system: Failure of one in an array of cheap sensors may trigger only a maintenance notification, with the system continuing to operate will within specifications.
I suspect the GM CEO is very hardwired when it comes to hardware, and is poorly informed about the power of software sensor fusion. Musk views his cars as software platforms, so he likely has a better grasp of the whole problem.
I've done lots of sensor development and sensor fusion for industrial and scientific systems. I haven't done a stand-alone single sensor (e.g., a lidar) in over a decade: My recent work is a diverse and redundant set of sensors, where the actual instrument is created via software. And I'm seeing ever improving performance for smaller increases in cost, a steady improvement in value per dollar.
I will take a few dozen cheap and imperfect sensors over a few "princess" sensors every time. Redundancy provides awesome benefits when combined via sensor fusion.
Most folks, including many so-called "experts", lack both the knowledge and ability to do anything close to a "real" security check. So the best route is to rely on "canned" testing that has been created and is maintained by a reputable group.
First, scan the platform (with the application installed) for known vulnerabilities, including updates, configuration (CVRs, STIGs), rootkits and antivirus.
Second, scan the source code with all available static analysis tools. Start with lint, then do as many more as you can afford.
Third, do as much run-time testing as the schedule permits, being sure to do not only functional testing, but also fuzzing at all levels.
Do the above using Free/Open tools, but also be sure to check out commercial tools. Yes, some tools are very much worth paying for.
That will get you 99% of the way there, with minimal time and effort invested.
Wow. You make it sound like you perceive only easy instant gratification as being worthwhile. I hope that's not the case!
Having to work toward a goal brings its own rewards, especially when the payoff is an awesome artistic experience. Personally, I view it more like a detective search, where buying a diamond for the price of a beer warms me to the cockles of my cheapskate Yankee heart. Which is pretty much the way I shop for everything online.
Movies have their place, but I find them confining: You can see only what is framed by the camera, and each shot lasts only moments, flickering back and forth many times in most scenes (which is why some directors are revered for their long continuous shots filmed without cuts or edits). Most films also lack visual subtlety, since the pace of the story dictates everything on the screen.
Aren't movie audiences the worst? The audiences for live theater typically show great respect for the cast, the production, and their fellow patrons (it typically falls to the volunteer ushers to gently educate those not understanding this). It's really a great experience just being part of the audience. I've come to despise most movie audiences: I will wait for the disk (or stream) for anything other than movies that genuinely require and make great use of "the big screen". Basically, I go to the movies to see the cinematographer's work writ large: Everything else works fine on my TV.
And I hate the smell of fake popcorn "butter".
In live theater, you have lots of time to appreciate all the details of the performance, including the sets, lighting and costumes, the movement of the actors, and so on. I find this is particularly helpful when I can't connect with the script: There is still a ton of art on the stage to appreciate. (In my case it's Bartok that I always fail to grasp. WTF? Yet I keep going.)
Best of all, live theater is unique and non-repeatable. Unlike a movie, each performance is unique to that night. Other nights may have cast substitutions, or a different "vibe" between the actors and the audience, or maybe one or more actors gives an especially terrific performance. It's a uniquely human condition and connection.
Plus, "seeing a play again" never really happens. Change the theater, cast, director and crew, and you have a new experience. My personal favorite in this aspect is Chekov's "The Cherry Orchard". The tight script would seem to leave little room for creativity, yet each of the different productions I've seen has "opened up" the play for me in ways I couldn't have imagined beforehand.
It's like pop music: Sure, we often adore what the original artist did with a song. Then you hear a cover that changes everything. Or go to a concert and find the artist has done their own changes (probably to stay sane). My younger brother was a Dead Head, where his main hobby was getting to every Grateful Dead performance he could possibly attend. He'd collect bootleg recordings of the performances he missed (something The Dead encouraged). He reveled in the nuances of each performance, what each band member did with his solo, or how someone improvised and took the band and the song in an entirely new direction.
Yeah, it's like that.
Now, there is one change to the movie experience that I love: Establishments that combine restaurant-quality food and beverages with the movie, requiring reservations, and providing seat selection. Basically, you are seated for dinner, and after the meal you get to have a movie for desert! Best of both worlds, greatly simplifying the logistics for date night!
I saw "Rent" on Broadway, and loved it. Years later the La Jolla Playhouse (a multiple Emmy-award winning regional theater) did its own production, with Neil Patrick Harris playing the lead.
To me, it was significantly BETTER than the original Broadway production!
First, I was in a smaller theater, seated much closer to the stage. Second, the director, Des McAnuff, simply did a better job with the play. The stage was also smaller, which the set designer and lighting director turned into an opportunity and challenge, and their sensational result knocked it out of the ballpark.
Finally, it is vitally important to understand that most Broadway plays don't start on Broadway! They start in smaller regional theaters, or even on a college campus that hosts a theater program.
The La Jolla Playhouse is located on the campus of UC San Diego, my alma matter. They have sent more plays TO Broadway than almost every other West Coast theater!
And as a volunteer usher, I see all their productions for FREE!
Sure, the above discounts or volunteering will NOT be available for popular first-run Broadway productions like Hamilton. Just be patient, and excellent local productions and/or a touring company will become available soon after the Broadway run ends.
The vast majority of live theater exists far, far away from Broadway. Complaining about Broadway ticket prices is like complaining about the cost of a Lamborghini: If you can't afford it, you're simply in the wrong market!
That said, I do save up for Broadway tickets every time I travel to New York. I have always been able to find creative ways to get seats for even the most popular performances, sometimes even at a discount!
There are MULTIPLE ways to see lots of live theater without breaking the bank!
1. Purchase subscriptions. This cuts the per-ticket price by 10-20% while guaranteeing you a good seat for each performance. Plus they will endlessly nag you to contribute to their foundation (many theaters are 501c3 non-profits).
2. Purchase discounted tickets via TIXS or Goldstar. Many theaters want a full house, but more importantly want to always avoid an empty house (it's tough on the artists to give their best in a nearly empty theater). You do get to choose your seat, with typical discounts of 20-60%. Check what's available in your town.
3. Purchase SRO (Standing Room Only) tickets, which are often discounted by to 75% or more. While you won't get to choose your seat, if you attend the less-packed performances (the box office will tell you which they are), you will ALMOST always get a seat. But you typically must show up in person well before the performance to buy your ticket: I typically get the SRO tickets on my way to dinner. I've attended even sold-out performances via SRO tickets!
4. Attend dress rehearsals and previews. While the play may not yet have all its rough edges smoothed, this is actually the best way to learn about how theater really works, what it takes to pull a production together. These tickets are either free or heavily discounted, though they may not be mentioned on the theater's web site, so you may have to call or physically go to the box office.
5. GO FOR FREE! Be a volunteer! When my theater addiction exceeded my budget, I bought a black suit, black dress shoes, white shirt and black tie, and became a volunteer usher. While small theaters may need only 2 ushers per performance, large theaters may need 20 or more, and EACH performance is handled by a DIFFERENT usher crew, which means each theater needs hundreds of volunteer ushers, with the largest needing over 1000. The opportunities are there!
I now see 20-30 plays each year (I usher for several theaters), and my total cost is gasoline, parking, and occasional suit dry cleaning.
Better yet, once I became known to the theater staff I was offered special perks, such as ushering for opening and/or closing night (with an invite to the after-party!). I've also ushered for one-night-only performances, including comedians (such as Billy Crystal, Second City, etc.) and special seminars and workshops held by visiting directors and artists (generally intended as perks for major donors).
But best of all I've been able to meet and interact with thousands of theater patrons. Some are rich or famous, most are old, but the vast majority are just normal folks who love live theater. As an usher, my favorite patrons are the disabled (who need me to get to/from their seats, not just point out the row), and the children (who have endless streams of great questions, especially ones adults may be too embarrassed to ask).
As a volunteer usher, I've also become an ambassador for local live theater, a relationship I treasure.
Theater is far more than just a great way to enjoyably pass a couple hours: It's an entire world with a unique and very diverse culture that also thrives off-stage.
Is the data being generated 24/7? If so, that's 432 GB/day, pretty much exactly 12 hours worth of your 100 Mbps bandwidth. So some spooling is needed, but why in the cloud? The main goal would seem to be avoiding paying twice to move the data, so you'd want to avoid using through a 3rd party if at all possible.
1. The simplest solution would appear to be to put a laptop with a 500+ GB HD at their facility. A laptop because it essentially has a built-in UPS, and the CPU can sleep much of the time.
2. Develop a relationship with whoever provides their bandwidth. Find the nearest peering point. Put a laptop there.
3. Get the NSA as a client, do some sysadmin work for them. Your data will be RIGHT THERE!
Paper is cheaper: Why pay more and get less?
on
Have eBooks Peaked?
·
· Score: 1
A "mass market paperback" costs $8-$9, while the same book in eBook form costs $10-$12.
The paperback helps keep the knowledgeable folks at my local bookstore (Mysterious Galaxy) happily employed. The eBook does not.
My local bookstore often hosts authors for in-person talks. The eBook store does not.
I share my paperback with friends and family after I read it. Can't do that with a DRM'ed eBook unless I share my eReader too (which is my phone and tablet these days).
Why PAY for an eBook if it costs more and does so much less?
The only place eBooks shine is for books that are out of print and out of copyright: Tens of thousands of books are available from Project Gutenberg for free and without DRM.
In 1973 I attended an average high school (Kettering) in an average school distict (Waterford) in an average state (Michigan) which deviated significantly from the average when it came to STEM education for motivated students. Some high schools in the disctict had a room full noisy paper TTYs connected to a remote server that was often down or overloaded. One math teacher at our school learned that the district's original accounting computer, a relic IBM 1401, was underutilized and was so primitive it could not be connected to remote TTYs. It supported only one TTY, that being the main operator's console.
All program and data entry had to be done via Hollerith punched cards and the associated card punch machines. We learned FORTRAN IV using pre-printed pads that were ruled like the top line of the Hollertih cards, with the columns labled in the fixed-line format of early FORTRAN. We had classes at our school, and once each week we were bused to the District Administration Center, where we would punch our cards, add the "magic job cards" to the beginning and end of our stacks, then stack them in the hopper next to the console.
Then we'd hover over the line-printer, waiting for the JCL lines showing the progress of our stacks, starting with them being read, the compiler being loaded, the binary being saved (to a DRUM memory), then, if all had gone well, the compiler being unloaded and our binary being loaded into working memory and run. After we each had completed several assigned programs, we were then able to select our own problem, then design and implement the code needed to run it.
My first truly independent program was taken from my biology class, a formula with 26 factors used to calculate rat metabolism (yes, we raised and monitored lab rats). Calculating this formula by hand was tedious and error-prone. My program made it almost trivial, working either from canned data on cards, or able to prompt the user for data on the system console.
I remember watching the lights on the 1401's status/logic board blink as it executed my program, seeing each major logic unit activate as it was used by the program, and seeing everything pause while waiting for user input.
Even then, we knew we were using the computing equivalent of a horse and buggy, but we didn't care. We had a system of our own, shared among less than 20 students, with the freedom to explore, fail, debug, and repair our programs. In today's terms, I'd say we felt and acted like hackers, reverse-engineering a complex system for which we didn't have access to all the manuals.
I still have the card deck for that program, wrapped in a folded printout from a run that I turned in as a biology assignment.
We didn't just learn "about" computers and programming: We learned how to USE a computer.
That one class set the course for my professional life, something for which I am and shall always be exceedingly greatful.
I look to documentation as being my first blank-sheet synthetic user. Writing documentation early forces me to get out of developer mode and into user mode. If I can't write the documentation first, then I probably don't understand the problem space well enough to craft a usable solution. If I can't explain my approach to others, then I probably don't understand it well enough myself!
If you subscribe to the "Test Early, Test Often" mantra, then what can you test before you have written any code? Yup, the documentation. As soon as I feel I've documented something well enough enough to start coding, I release my documentation to anyone who wants to look at it. The feedback can reveal areas I missed or misunderstood before I have sunk too much time into building a wrong or incomplete thing.
As a developer of embedded real-time systems, early knowledge or perception gaps can become costly in terms of both money and schedule. Writing documentation and getting it reviewed will quickly highlight areas that need further examination or exploration. Where is more research needed? Which areas should be prototyped to ensure feasibility before choosing a specific solution path?
You can also view documentation as the first conceptual system test and last real-world system test: If the final product doesn't do what's promised in the documentattion, then either the worng product was built, or the documentation describes something that can't or shouldn't be built. Good to know this stuff ASAP!
Documentation is also a negotiation tool: It gives all stakeholders something to point at while describing their needs. It ensures we're all speaking the same language.
If you work in an Agile environment, negotiated documentation updates are one of the best ways to get needed changes into the product. This also means documentation is a living artifact: The code can't be wrapped up until the documentation stabilizes. It also helps bind distributed teams, again because it provides a common point of reference.
In a completely new project, the first document I write is the User Manual. It lets me distill requirements and use-cases into my conception of the final product. If my task is a library, then that document may fit in a README.txt file. If it is a device or system, it may be the size of a small book (depending on the size or complexity of the system).
When doing maintenance, the bug system is the primary gateway I use for deciding what should be changed, why it should be changed, and how it should be changed. The relevant bug reports and feature requests live only in text form, and evolve into stories that end with a "to do" list. Again, it's all documentation.
Finally, the code itself must also be documentation that can be understood by those who may need to maintain it later or re-use it in another product. When the code is working well and passes all tests, prior to release I host a code review. In addition to inviting other programmers, I always invite non-coders who have the technical acumen to understand the problems the software tries to solve: If the code and its comments are not self-documenting to a significant degree, then I have failed to make a maintainable product. Which means *I* may be stuck maintaining it, rather than being able to move on to new projects!
Documentation also has professional and ethical dimensions: My employer has commissioned and paid me to develop a product, and they deserve to recieve not only the final implementation, but also the means to maintain, re-use and re-engineer that product in the future. Anything that stays in my head becomes "lost" to my employer should I die or accept other employment.
My obsession with all levels of documentation came from a mentor whose code at a prior employer became an issue in a law suit between his prior employer and one of their competitors. Because he was working at a third competitor, his then-current employer was able to prevent him from testifying, arguing that his prior code con
I run several scientific/engineering apps simultaneously, and usually have 20-30 browser tabs open in multiple windows, so my system is often taxed to its limits. I don't like it when any desktop unreasonably deprives me or RAM, CPU, GPU or usable screen area, no matter what usability features are provided. I may not be anything like a 'normal' user: For example, I don't use the desktop itself for anything mainly because it requires me to minimize ALL my windows in order to see it, so I don't use any desktop widgets and I don't care what my desktop background is. I also use only a single workspace.
I have a LITTLE-big home setup: My primary desktop runs on an Atom-powered Acer Aspire Revo 1600 running Ubuntu 11.04 connected to a 42" HD monitor, which I use for running GUI-intensive apps. My compute server is a headless dual-Xeon Dell running Fedora 15, which runs my CPU-intensive and net-intensive apps.
One of my goals has been to seamlessly merge the resources of both systems into a single desktop interface, especially the application menus and monitoring widgets.
After my recent upgrade to Ubuntu 11.10 I decided to give each of the included desktops a try, starting with Unity, and including Gnome3, KDE, and XFCE. I found each of them to have significant issues, though I won't go into all the YMMV/IMHO details. I next tried some less popular desktops. While each had various usability and configuration issues for me, the one thing none did at all well (with one exception) was to provide a truly easy and intuitive way to merge my systems.
What I wound up with was Cairo-Dock (http://glx-dock.org), which runs on top of a minimal Gnome foundation. I run two instances side-by-side at the bottom of my screen: A 'full' Cairo-Dock instance locally on my U11.10 system, and a stripped-down one on my remote F15 system. The combination is a powerful, minimal, flexible, and drop-dead easy interface to both systems that was trivial to install and configure. Very highly recommended.
Though I've never been a MacOS user, Cairo-Dock should look very familiar to such folks.
I then uninstalled all the other desktops (and the parts of Gnome Cairo-Dock doesn't need) and recovered a surprisingly vast amount of disk space.
Going to a prestigious school garners the following benefits:
1. Access to accomplished professors and state-of-the-art research projects.
I got job recommendations from profs who wrote the texts used in many courses. As an undergrad, I was able to participate in research that even grad students wouldn't have access to at other schools. I even got to be a co-author on a paper published in a top journal, and also got to do a presentation at a national conference (not just a 'poster session' either!).
2. The Big Dogs always visit the Big Schools.
Companies needing "the best" will go to the schools that produce them, in order to get what they need lined up BEFORE the new grads hit the market. For other schools, you often need to go to the companies and compete with everyone else trying to get in.
One caveat: This does NOT apply to internships at companies that aren't located close to a top-ranked institution. Sometimes, getting a good internsip at a good company matters far FAR more than the school, since then the company can become an integral part of your education.
Not only did I get to attend a great school, but I also had a killer internship. And the job offer I got from the company I interned with was WAY better (in opportunity, not just money) than the offers I got from HP and SUN.
3. The GPA from a good school matters LESS than it does from a lesser school.
This is mainly due to the fact that the GPA at a good school is often harder to maintain. But anything less than a 3.8 from a middling school may prove to be a hindrance.
So, if you have a great internship, keep it and don't move! Otherwise, if your GPA is currently good (*all* grades 3.00 or better), consider moving to a school that having the benefits that matter the most to you.
I graduated from U.C. San Diego (UCSD) in the mid-80's, and the quality of that B.Sci. eliminated the need for a Master's degree. I learned how to do my own research, and was immediately ready to participate in cutting-edge R&D projects. Basically, the fun factor was (and is) fantastic.
The degree matters MUCH less once you have 5 years experience. But how do you get those first 5 years to contain the best experience? That's right: Start with the best job. And to do that, you need either a great internship or the best degree. Preferably both!
Proxim doubled 802.11a last year...
on
802.11b at 22mbps
·
· Score: 1
Late last year Proxim delivered their Harmony 802.11a PC-Cards that are capable of "2X" mode, which yields 108 Mbps. At the time, a 2X AP wasn't available, so I tested using two PC-Cards.
Unfortunately, the 5 GHz band used by 802.11a has trouble punching though anything much thicker than paper. I only obtained above 100 Mbps when standing within 8 feet of the other card. And that's with the antennas optimally aligned to each other.
Repeating the tests using 802.11b cards showed vastly better range at full bandwidth, and much better fade resistance.
We wanted to use 802.11a in 2X mode to send live 1500x1100 video about 50 feet. No way, no how.
I'm planning to try again when 802.11g ships. The 2.4 GHz band simply has much more "punch" within the limits of the 802.11 family of protocols.
Dallas Semi is putting some of their "1-Wire" sensors into two terminal SMT packages that are near the limit of what pick and place equipment can handle.
These are "smart" sensors, each of which has a unique 64-bit address, up to 254 of which can reside on a single pair of conductors that can be up to 300 meters long.
To avoid Slashdotting Sweden, the primary US mirror is http://nobel.sdsc.edu/announcement-99 , and the announcement is also mirrored at several SUNsites.
Slashdot Mirror
We are presently able to build and train bigger neural nets than we can decode. That's all right. In comparison, many great buildings and structures were built for literally centuries before much of material physics was well understood.
Certain neural net architectures lend themselves very well to being well understood, for example convolutional neural nets.
Other neural network architectures are far less transparent, but lots of work is being done in that area. The main issues appears to be that current neural network architectures are simply too messy, based on heuristics and experience rather than derived from a higher-level theory that maps into the problem domain.
Fundamentally, it's all statistics, and stats are messy. Just look at the ongoing debates between Frequentists and Bayesians. This entire field still has lots of growing-up to do.
What's truly amazing is how useful neural nets are without a deep understanding of precisely how and why.
There are many, many PhDs ready and waiting for those willing to wade in and help move things along.
The GM CEO view is a very common one: You can only get perfect data from perfect sensors, and Tesla's sensors are far from perfect.
That view is common,but it is incorrect from two separate perspectives:
1) There is no such thing as a perfect sensor. At best there's "close enough", defined as the point at which more money does no good.
2) The use of multiple sensors, and multiple kinds of sensors, creates a whole that is far greater than the sum of its imperfect parts.
The problem then becomes not just getting this data from one special sensor, but getting all the data we need from a set of imperfect sensors.
This is called "sensor fusion". At a simple level, it makes sense that two cheap radar sensors ought to be able to create better data than a single sensor costing twice as much, because each of the two sensors can be used to check and improve the other. And combining radar and ultrasonic sensors can provide data that neither can provide alone, no matter how good the individual sensors are.
But sensor fusion also works the other way, letting us peer deeply inside our cheap and imperfect sensors. Sensor fusion lets us dynamically perform characterizations and calibrations of imperfect sensors that greatly enhance the usability of their data.
Sensor fusion also adds robustness to the system: Failure of a big, expensive sensor can take down the entire system: Failure of one in an array of cheap sensors may trigger only a maintenance notification, with the system continuing to operate will within specifications.
I suspect the GM CEO is very hardwired when it comes to hardware, and is poorly informed about the power of software sensor fusion. Musk views his cars as software platforms, so he likely has a better grasp of the whole problem.
I've done lots of sensor development and sensor fusion for industrial and scientific systems. I haven't done a stand-alone single sensor (e.g., a lidar) in over a decade: My recent work is a diverse and redundant set of sensors, where the actual instrument is created via software. And I'm seeing ever improving performance for smaller increases in cost, a steady improvement in value per dollar.
I will take a few dozen cheap and imperfect sensors over a few "princess" sensors every time. Redundancy provides awesome benefits when combined via sensor fusion.
Most folks, including many so-called "experts", lack both the knowledge and ability to do anything close to a "real" security check. So the best route is to rely on "canned" testing that has been created and is maintained by a reputable group.
First, scan the platform (with the application installed) for known vulnerabilities, including updates, configuration (CVRs, STIGs), rootkits and antivirus.
Second, scan the source code with all available static analysis tools. Start with lint, then do as many more as you can afford.
Third, do as much run-time testing as the schedule permits, being sure to do not only functional testing, but also fuzzing at all levels.
Do the above using Free/Open tools, but also be sure to check out commercial tools. Yes, some tools are very much worth paying for.
That will get you 99% of the way there, with minimal time and effort invested.
Wow. You make it sound like you perceive only easy instant gratification as being worthwhile. I hope that's not the case!
Having to work toward a goal brings its own rewards, especially when the payoff is an awesome artistic experience. Personally, I view it more like a detective search, where buying a diamond for the price of a beer warms me to the cockles of my cheapskate Yankee heart. Which is pretty much the way I shop for everything online.
Movies have their place, but I find them confining: You can see only what is framed by the camera, and each shot lasts only moments, flickering back and forth many times in most scenes (which is why some directors are revered for their long continuous shots filmed without cuts or edits). Most films also lack visual subtlety, since the pace of the story dictates everything on the screen.
Aren't movie audiences the worst? The audiences for live theater typically show great respect for the cast, the production, and their fellow patrons (it typically falls to the volunteer ushers to gently educate those not understanding this). It's really a great experience just being part of the audience. I've come to despise most movie audiences: I will wait for the disk (or stream) for anything other than movies that genuinely require and make great use of "the big screen". Basically, I go to the movies to see the cinematographer's work writ large: Everything else works fine on my TV.
And I hate the smell of fake popcorn "butter".
In live theater, you have lots of time to appreciate all the details of the performance, including the sets, lighting and costumes, the movement of the actors, and so on. I find this is particularly helpful when I can't connect with the script: There is still a ton of art on the stage to appreciate. (In my case it's Bartok that I always fail to grasp. WTF? Yet I keep going.)
Best of all, live theater is unique and non-repeatable. Unlike a movie, each performance is unique to that night. Other nights may have cast substitutions, or a different "vibe" between the actors and the audience, or maybe one or more actors gives an especially terrific performance. It's a uniquely human condition and connection.
Plus, "seeing a play again" never really happens. Change the theater, cast, director and crew, and you have a new experience. My personal favorite in this aspect is Chekov's "The Cherry Orchard". The tight script would seem to leave little room for creativity, yet each of the different productions I've seen has "opened up" the play for me in ways I couldn't have imagined beforehand.
It's like pop music: Sure, we often adore what the original artist did with a song. Then you hear a cover that changes everything. Or go to a concert and find the artist has done their own changes (probably to stay sane). My younger brother was a Dead Head, where his main hobby was getting to every Grateful Dead performance he could possibly attend. He'd collect bootleg recordings of the performances he missed (something The Dead encouraged). He reveled in the nuances of each performance, what each band member did with his solo, or how someone improvised and took the band and the song in an entirely new direction.
Yeah, it's like that.
Now, there is one change to the movie experience that I love: Establishments that combine restaurant-quality food and beverages with the movie, requiring reservations, and providing seat selection. Basically, you are seated for dinner, and after the meal you get to have a movie for desert! Best of both worlds, greatly simplifying the logistics for date night!
Forgot to mention my favorite example:
I saw "Rent" on Broadway, and loved it. Years later the La Jolla Playhouse (a multiple Emmy-award winning regional theater) did its own production, with Neil Patrick Harris playing the lead.
To me, it was significantly BETTER than the original Broadway production!
First, I was in a smaller theater, seated much closer to the stage. Second, the director, Des McAnuff, simply did a better job with the play. The stage was also smaller, which the set designer and lighting director turned into an opportunity and challenge, and their sensational result knocked it out of the ballpark.
Finally, it is vitally important to understand that most Broadway plays don't start on Broadway! They start in smaller regional theaters, or even on a college campus that hosts a theater program.
The La Jolla Playhouse is located on the campus of UC San Diego, my alma matter. They have sent more plays TO Broadway than almost every other West Coast theater!
And as a volunteer usher, I see all their productions for FREE!
Sure, the above discounts or volunteering will NOT be available for popular first-run Broadway productions like Hamilton. Just be patient, and excellent local productions and/or a touring company will become available soon after the Broadway run ends.
The vast majority of live theater exists far, far away from Broadway. Complaining about Broadway ticket prices is like complaining about the cost of a Lamborghini: If you can't afford it, you're simply in the wrong market!
That said, I do save up for Broadway tickets every time I travel to New York. I have always been able to find creative ways to get seats for even the most popular performances, sometimes even at a discount!
Google is your friend. Plan early!
There are MULTIPLE ways to see lots of live theater without breaking the bank!
1. Purchase subscriptions. This cuts the per-ticket price by 10-20% while guaranteeing you a good seat for each performance. Plus they will endlessly nag you to contribute to their foundation (many theaters are 501c3 non-profits).
2. Purchase discounted tickets via TIXS or Goldstar. Many theaters want a full house, but more importantly want to always avoid an empty house (it's tough on the artists to give their best in a nearly empty theater). You do get to choose your seat, with typical discounts of 20-60%. Check what's available in your town.
3. Purchase SRO (Standing Room Only) tickets, which are often discounted by to 75% or more. While you won't get to choose your seat, if you attend the less-packed performances (the box office will tell you which they are), you will ALMOST always get a seat. But you typically must show up in person well before the performance to buy your ticket: I typically get the SRO tickets on my way to dinner. I've attended even sold-out performances via SRO tickets!
4. Attend dress rehearsals and previews. While the play may not yet have all its rough edges smoothed, this is actually the best way to learn about how theater really works, what it takes to pull a production together. These tickets are either free or heavily discounted, though they may not be mentioned on the theater's web site, so you may have to call or physically go to the box office.
5. GO FOR FREE! Be a volunteer! When my theater addiction exceeded my budget, I bought a black suit, black dress shoes, white shirt and black tie, and became a volunteer usher. While small theaters may need only 2 ushers per performance, large theaters may need 20 or more, and EACH performance is handled by a DIFFERENT usher crew, which means each theater needs hundreds of volunteer ushers, with the largest needing over 1000. The opportunities are there!
I now see 20-30 plays each year (I usher for several theaters), and my total cost is gasoline, parking, and occasional suit dry cleaning.
Better yet, once I became known to the theater staff I was offered special perks, such as ushering for opening and/or closing night (with an invite to the after-party!). I've also ushered for one-night-only performances, including comedians (such as Billy Crystal, Second City, etc.) and special seminars and workshops held by visiting directors and artists (generally intended as perks for major donors).
But best of all I've been able to meet and interact with thousands of theater patrons. Some are rich or famous, most are old, but the vast majority are just normal folks who love live theater. As an usher, my favorite patrons are the disabled (who need me to get to/from their seats, not just point out the row), and the children (who have endless streams of great questions, especially ones adults may be too embarrassed to ask).
As a volunteer usher, I've also become an ambassador for local live theater, a relationship I treasure.
Theater is far more than just a great way to enjoyably pass a couple hours: It's an entire world with a unique and very diverse culture that also thrives off-stage.
NEVER let money be your reason for not attending!
Is the data being generated 24/7? If so, that's 432 GB/day, pretty much exactly 12 hours worth of your 100 Mbps bandwidth. So some spooling is needed, but why in the cloud? The main goal would seem to be avoiding paying twice to move the data, so you'd want to avoid using through a 3rd party if at all possible.
1. The simplest solution would appear to be to put a laptop with a 500+ GB HD at their facility. A laptop because it essentially has a built-in UPS, and the CPU can sleep much of the time.
2. Develop a relationship with whoever provides their bandwidth. Find the nearest peering point. Put a laptop there.
3. Get the NSA as a client, do some sysadmin work for them. Your data will be RIGHT THERE!
A "mass market paperback" costs $8-$9, while the same book in eBook form costs $10-$12.
The paperback helps keep the knowledgeable folks at my local bookstore (Mysterious Galaxy) happily employed. The eBook does not.
My local bookstore often hosts authors for in-person talks. The eBook store does not.
I share my paperback with friends and family after I read it. Can't do that with a DRM'ed eBook unless I share my eReader too (which is my phone and tablet these days).
Why PAY for an eBook if it costs more and does so much less?
The only place eBooks shine is for books that are out of print and out of copyright: Tens of thousands of books are available from Project Gutenberg for free and without DRM.
In 1973 I attended an average high school (Kettering) in an average school distict (Waterford) in an average state (Michigan) which deviated significantly from the average when it came to STEM education for motivated students. Some high schools in the disctict had a room full noisy paper TTYs connected to a remote server that was often down or overloaded. One math teacher at our school learned that the district's original accounting computer, a relic IBM 1401, was underutilized and was so primitive it could not be connected to remote TTYs. It supported only one TTY, that being the main operator's console.
All program and data entry had to be done via Hollerith punched cards and the associated card punch machines. We learned FORTRAN IV using pre-printed pads that were ruled like the top line of the Hollertih cards, with the columns labled in the fixed-line format of early FORTRAN. We had classes at our school, and once each week we were bused to the District Administration Center, where we would punch our cards, add the "magic job cards" to the beginning and end of our stacks, then stack them in the hopper next to the console.
Then we'd hover over the line-printer, waiting for the JCL lines showing the progress of our stacks, starting with them being read, the compiler being loaded, the binary being saved (to a DRUM memory), then, if all had gone well, the compiler being unloaded and our binary being loaded into working memory and run. After we each had completed several assigned programs, we were then able to select our own problem, then design and implement the code needed to run it.
My first truly independent program was taken from my biology class, a formula with 26 factors used to calculate rat metabolism (yes, we raised and monitored lab rats). Calculating this formula by hand was tedious and error-prone. My program made it almost trivial, working either from canned data on cards, or able to prompt the user for data on the system console.
I remember watching the lights on the 1401's status/logic board blink as it executed my program, seeing each major logic unit activate as it was used by the program, and seeing everything pause while waiting for user input.
Even then, we knew we were using the computing equivalent of a horse and buggy, but we didn't care. We had a system of our own, shared among less than 20 students, with the freedom to explore, fail, debug, and repair our programs. In today's terms, I'd say we felt and acted like hackers, reverse-engineering a complex system for which we didn't have access to all the manuals.
I still have the card deck for that program, wrapped in a folded printout from a run that I turned in as a biology assignment.
We didn't just learn "about" computers and programming: We learned how to USE a computer.
That one class set the course for my professional life, something for which I am and shall always be exceedingly greatful.
I look to documentation as being my first blank-sheet synthetic user. Writing documentation early forces me to get out of developer mode and into user mode. If I can't write the documentation first, then I probably don't understand the problem space well enough to craft a usable solution. If I can't explain my approach to others, then I probably don't understand it well enough myself!
If you subscribe to the "Test Early, Test Often" mantra, then what can you test before you have written any code? Yup, the documentation. As soon as I feel I've documented something well enough enough to start coding, I release my documentation to anyone who wants to look at it. The feedback can reveal areas I missed or misunderstood before I have sunk too much time into building a wrong or incomplete thing.
As a developer of embedded real-time systems, early knowledge or perception gaps can become costly in terms of both money and schedule. Writing documentation and getting it reviewed will quickly highlight areas that need further examination or exploration. Where is more research needed? Which areas should be prototyped to ensure feasibility before choosing a specific solution path?
You can also view documentation as the first conceptual system test and last real-world system test: If the final product doesn't do what's promised in the documentattion, then either the worng product was built, or the documentation describes something that can't or shouldn't be built. Good to know this stuff ASAP!
Documentation is also a negotiation tool: It gives all stakeholders something to point at while describing their needs. It ensures we're all speaking the same language.
If you work in an Agile environment, negotiated documentation updates are one of the best ways to get needed changes into the product. This also means documentation is a living artifact: The code can't be wrapped up until the documentation stabilizes. It also helps bind distributed teams, again because it provides a common point of reference.
In a completely new project, the first document I write is the User Manual. It lets me distill requirements and use-cases into my conception of the final product. If my task is a library, then that document may fit in a README.txt file. If it is a device or system, it may be the size of a small book (depending on the size or complexity of the system).
When doing maintenance, the bug system is the primary gateway I use for deciding what should be changed, why it should be changed, and how it should be changed. The relevant bug reports and feature requests live only in text form, and evolve into stories that end with a "to do" list. Again, it's all documentation.
Finally, the code itself must also be documentation that can be understood by those who may need to maintain it later or re-use it in another product. When the code is working well and passes all tests, prior to release I host a code review. In addition to inviting other programmers, I always invite non-coders who have the technical acumen to understand the problems the software tries to solve: If the code and its comments are not self-documenting to a significant degree, then I have failed to make a maintainable product. Which means *I* may be stuck maintaining it, rather than being able to move on to new projects!
Documentation also has professional and ethical dimensions: My employer has commissioned and paid me to develop a product, and they deserve to recieve not only the final implementation, but also the means to maintain, re-use and re-engineer that product in the future. Anything that stays in my head becomes "lost" to my employer should I die or accept other employment.
My obsession with all levels of documentation came from a mentor whose code at a prior employer became an issue in a law suit between his prior employer and one of their competitors. Because he was working at a third competitor, his then-current employer was able to prevent him from testifying, arguing that his prior code con
I run several scientific/engineering apps simultaneously, and usually have 20-30 browser tabs open in multiple windows, so my system is often taxed to its limits. I don't like it when any desktop unreasonably deprives me or RAM, CPU, GPU or usable screen area, no matter what usability features are provided. I may not be anything like a 'normal' user: For example, I don't use the desktop itself for anything mainly because it requires me to minimize ALL my windows in order to see it, so I don't use any desktop widgets and I don't care what my desktop background is. I also use only a single workspace.
I have a LITTLE-big home setup: My primary desktop runs on an Atom-powered Acer Aspire Revo 1600 running Ubuntu 11.04 connected to a 42" HD monitor, which I use for running GUI-intensive apps. My compute server is a headless dual-Xeon Dell running Fedora 15, which runs my CPU-intensive and net-intensive apps.
One of my goals has been to seamlessly merge the resources of both systems into a single desktop interface, especially the application menus and monitoring widgets.
After my recent upgrade to Ubuntu 11.10 I decided to give each of the included desktops a try, starting with Unity, and including Gnome3, KDE, and XFCE. I found each of them to have significant issues, though I won't go into all the YMMV/IMHO details. I next tried some less popular desktops. While each had various usability and configuration issues for me, the one thing none did at all well (with one exception) was to provide a truly easy and intuitive way to merge my systems.
What I wound up with was Cairo-Dock (http://glx-dock.org), which runs on top of a minimal Gnome foundation. I run two instances side-by-side at the bottom of my screen: A 'full' Cairo-Dock instance locally on my U11.10 system, and a stripped-down one on my remote F15 system. The combination is a powerful, minimal, flexible, and drop-dead easy interface to both systems that was trivial to install and configure. Very highly recommended.
Though I've never been a MacOS user, Cairo-Dock should look very familiar to such folks.
I then uninstalled all the other desktops (and the parts of Gnome Cairo-Dock doesn't need) and recovered a surprisingly vast amount of disk space.
Going to a prestigious school garners the following benefits:
1. Access to accomplished professors and state-of-the-art research projects.
I got job recommendations from profs who wrote the texts used in many courses. As an undergrad, I was able to participate in research that even grad students wouldn't have access to at other schools. I even got to be a co-author on a paper published in a top journal, and also got to do a presentation at a national conference (not just a 'poster session' either!).
2. The Big Dogs always visit the Big Schools.
Companies needing "the best" will go to the schools that produce them, in order to get what they need lined up BEFORE the new grads hit the market. For other schools, you often need to go to the companies and compete with everyone else trying to get in.
One caveat: This does NOT apply to internships at companies that aren't located close to a top-ranked institution. Sometimes, getting a good internsip at a good company matters far FAR more than the school, since then the company can become an integral part of your education.
Not only did I get to attend a great school, but I also had a killer internship. And the job offer I got from the company I interned with was WAY better (in opportunity, not just money) than the offers I got from HP and SUN.
3. The GPA from a good school matters LESS than it does from a lesser school.
This is mainly due to the fact that the GPA at a good school is often harder to maintain. But anything less than a 3.8 from a middling school may prove to be a hindrance.
So, if you have a great internship, keep it and don't move! Otherwise, if your GPA is currently good (*all* grades 3.00 or better), consider moving to a school that having the benefits that matter the most to you.
I graduated from U.C. San Diego (UCSD) in the mid-80's, and the quality of that B.Sci. eliminated the need for a Master's degree. I learned how to do my own research, and was immediately ready to participate in cutting-edge R&D projects. Basically, the fun factor was (and is) fantastic.
The degree matters MUCH less once you have 5 years experience. But how do you get those first 5 years to contain the best experience? That's right: Start with the best job. And to do that, you need either a great internship or the best degree. Preferably both!
Late last year Proxim delivered their Harmony 802.11a PC-Cards that are capable of "2X" mode, which yields 108 Mbps. At the time, a 2X AP wasn't available, so I tested using two PC-Cards.
Unfortunately, the 5 GHz band used by 802.11a has trouble punching though anything much thicker than paper. I only obtained above 100 Mbps when standing within 8 feet of the other card. And that's with the antennas optimally aligned to each other.
Repeating the tests using 802.11b cards showed vastly better range at full bandwidth, and much better fade resistance.
We wanted to use 802.11a in 2X mode to send live 1500x1100 video about 50 feet. No way, no how.
I'm planning to try again when 802.11g ships. The 2.4 GHz band simply has much more "punch" within the limits of the 802.11 family of protocols.
-BobC
These are "smart" sensors, each of which has a unique 64-bit address, up to 254 of which can reside on a single pair of conductors that can be up to 300 meters long.
To avoid Slashdotting Sweden, the primary US mirror is http://nobel.sdsc.edu/announcement-99 , and the announcement is also mirrored at several SUNsites.