USD 20 per MB can be low by some standards. If you look here at one of Spain's biggest mobile telecoms, you'll see that when you roam internationally, certain types of data transfer can cost up to EUR 46.20 per MB. That's about USD 63.87 per MB, converted at today's mid-rate.
I'm sure there are quite a few of you that have had the experience of passing through Heathrow - and those of you have probably also had to do the cumbersome Gatwick-Heathrow exchange (or vice-versa) in order to reach connecting international and/or European flights.
From experience I know that whenever people do this exchange, they have to pass through customs and immigration where they declare that they are not expected to be in England for more than a few hours. Usually they have to present proof of a connecting boarding pass and sometimes, difficult questions can follow. Since they want to do this to "visitors," they'll probably mandate travellers passing through to go through this as well - even if they are not expected to remain in England.
While US air travel has become gruelling, I expect that the UK will rapidly surpass it with an invasive policy like this. I wonder how it will impact tourism and/or one of the largest connecting hubs in the world.
Interesting read, but it makes no mention of the anticipation from existing space projects and what they'll reveal in the next 50 years. As was recently stated in another article, Voyager 2 is still up and running while feeding back information over 12.5b km away (source: Wikipedia). The same is true for Voyager 1 - with it being expected to reach the heliopause by 2015.
I know there's still plenty to discover around here, but I find the possibility of discovery through those resilient probes much more fascinating than a space elevator. I just hope they can maintain power long enough to relay something back to us.
In principle, I'm with you on notion of spelling. I think that proper diction is essential to properly communicating and how people perceive you. Let's face it - a well worded reply, for example, is likely to be viewed more favourably than one that is littered with mistakes even if the actual message is the same. Similarly, properly worded code is going to inspire more confidence than one that looks like it was written by children.
But I can foresee situations in which the developers do make genuine mistakes. "Signiture" is probably a poor example because it relates to a very specific task if you're talking something like encryption. But with other less critical tasks, these can bubble up. Ultimately, developing is coming up with solutions to known problems - spelling has little to do with that core exercise. Of course, there's the issue that the commenting may likely follow suit, but that's another story.
I think that truly superb developers should have both qualities but ideal characteristics are rarely easily found. That's why it's necessary for people with different proficiencies are required to spot such mistakes early on. Like the original parent said, a system design document (SDD) would easily nail this from the get-go, especially if multiple people are collaborating on a project. After all, a software development project really shouldn't have only one person involved.
Why idiots? A great developer may not necessarily have a commanding grasp of English, especially if it's a second language for them. That doesn't make them stupid.
Other than that, I agree with everything else you wrote. Planning things out through proper software development techniques should isolate those issues in advance.
Really? That paints a very different story then. When I read expenses, I assumed that those were the extraneous costs of doing business, such as travel, accommodation, food, petrol, mileage, et cetera.
A lot of people are scoffing at the legal payout: 75m (67m effectively, without expenses). While it's incredibly high out of context, it actually makes sense over the course of a 6 year ordeal. I don't know how they structured the award settlement with the firm, but I'll simply go with the idea that it was purely labour-based.
Assume that the average legal fee at the firm is about USD 500 per hour. 67m buys 134k hours which equates to roughly 15.29 consecutive years of labour for one person that works 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I'm guessing this likely had a legal team of 10+ people. If we were to take it at the low estimate of 10 people, that's about 1.5 years of work per team member on the suit - or ~547 working days spread over 6 years.
That sounds a lot more reasonable to me. Plus, class-action isn't all it's cut out to be. Mergers and acquisitions can be much more lucrative.
Mr. Tan, his photo gallery and the company's endorsement of his little side project, said Eric Schmidt, the company's chief executive, are "representative of much of what is right and fun about Google."
Google is doomed. That sounded too much like David Brent pointing at the monkey and saying, "those are the kinds of laughs we have around here."
Out of curiosity, what actually constitutes a supercomputer? Is there a certain threshold of OPS that must be achieved above and beyond what's considered a desktop or entertainment solution (five times, ten times)? Is it a matter of hardware structure? Degree of specialization?
I can't find anything that clearly outlines the criteria.
Would that argument actually hold up in court? According to Wikipedia's entry on copyright (obtaining and enforcing copyright), monetizing the work is not one of the pre-requisites qualification.
If I interpret your statement correctly, aren't artists who do not wish to sell their works wide-open to abuse. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?
I must have missed the details you mentioned - but after re-reading the article about 3 times, I still can't find the part you are referring to. Is it in the MSNBC link or are you quoting another source? Does it talk in more detail about the enforcement?
If that's true, I'm not sure whether to be impressed, disgusted, or simultaneously frightened of such a rapid bureaucratic deployment - especially for something like this. Then again, we are talking about a government that is constantly monitoring everything.
I predict that these band-aid solutions to try and motivate students will backfire when (and if) they continue their education. I remember when I was back in school and the prospect of taking AP courses was supposed to be the pinnacle in difficulty - that they were almost equivalent to the types of courses you would find in first-year university. When I got through them, I was expecting that university would be a simple continuation of that, perhaps somewhat alleviated by the fact that I had learned more than is normally required at that level.
I'll never forget the day when I sat in one of my fist physics classes at university. The professor calmly remarked that 40% was the passing grade. Having done quite well even through the AP programme, I looked at one of my friends with disbelief. I thought, how could they possibly set such a low bar? Needless to say, that overconfident smirk got cleanly wiped off my face when the prospect of hitting well below that threshold became a very real possibility.
But back to my original point. Sure, you can lower the grades today and it *might* garner some additional interest, but it's certainly conveying the wrong message: school isn't supposed to be easy. Nothing worth doing is. Since when are we trying to teach people that if they do something badly enough the system will just be made easier for them to coast through?
Moreover, it'll just make the fallout worse when they get into higher education and get absolutely trounced by material that is no longer dumbed down for the masses - but curved against the best and brightest. Unless, of course, that system is "improved" too.
Assume for a moment that people want to play along. I'm curious what the application process would be like. Do you have some forms to fill out? Do you need to go to a special office? Who will be overseeing this particular application? Who approves it? And probably the most obvious question is: how are they going to enforce it? Is this a case of them summarily making a sweeping statement without thinking about the ramifications of putting together a system to handle the throughput?
As absurd as this issue seems, constructing a legal and bureaucratic process around it sounds even more bizarre.
I would file this under corporate strategy. One could argue that it would have been irresponsible for Microsoft (or any business for that matter) to not attempt to sway a decision that directly impacts their business through lobbying tactics where it has the ability to do so. Plus, there was nothing to indicate that it involved nefarious or illegal methods to do so.
I'm sure many would do the same with their own companies to bolster support for something they created.
I had the exact same reaction when I first this story - why is there so much focus on all the non-gaming features? But then I realized it could be a matter of strategy and control.
In terms of the control, I have often wondered just how much influence the actual console companies can exert over game development houses. They can certainly make it attractive, negotiate exclusivity deals, make it easier to develop for, and profitable to do so, but without owning those companies themselves they'll always just be third-party suppliers.
Which leads me to my main point - perhaps this is part of a larger overall plan to have an extensive feature set ready to go by the time the best games are all available. If I remember correctly, the PS2 didn't really start steam-rolling until all the blockbuster titles arrived on the scene, which took a while. But by that time they were ready. So from that perspective, one could argue that they are doing everything they can to continue to improve the hardware while the developers are getting those titles out the door.
In the next year, we could see the PS3 hit its stride when the price has dropped, the library has hit critical mass, and the feature set is far more extensive than any of its competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
USD 20 per MB can be low by some standards. If you look here at one of Spain's biggest mobile telecoms, you'll see that when you roam internationally, certain types of data transfer can cost up to EUR 46.20 per MB. That's about USD 63.87 per MB, converted at today's mid-rate.
I'm sure there are quite a few of you that have had the experience of passing through Heathrow - and those of you have probably also had to do the cumbersome Gatwick-Heathrow exchange (or vice-versa) in order to reach connecting international and/or European flights.
From experience I know that whenever people do this exchange, they have to pass through customs and immigration where they declare that they are not expected to be in England for more than a few hours. Usually they have to present proof of a connecting boarding pass and sometimes, difficult questions can follow. Since they want to do this to "visitors," they'll probably mandate travellers passing through to go through this as well - even if they are not expected to remain in England.
While US air travel has become gruelling, I expect that the UK will rapidly surpass it with an invasive policy like this. I wonder how it will impact tourism and/or one of the largest connecting hubs in the world.
I'm open to it.
Too soon?
Interesting read, but it makes no mention of the anticipation from existing space projects and what they'll reveal in the next 50 years. As was recently stated in another article, Voyager 2 is still up and running while feeding back information over 12.5b km away (source: Wikipedia). The same is true for Voyager 1 - with it being expected to reach the heliopause by 2015.
I know there's still plenty to discover around here, but I find the possibility of discovery through those resilient probes much more fascinating than a space elevator. I just hope they can maintain power long enough to relay something back to us.
In principle, I'm with you on notion of spelling. I think that proper diction is essential to properly communicating and how people perceive you. Let's face it - a well worded reply, for example, is likely to be viewed more favourably than one that is littered with mistakes even if the actual message is the same. Similarly, properly worded code is going to inspire more confidence than one that looks like it was written by children.
But I can foresee situations in which the developers do make genuine mistakes. "Signiture" is probably a poor example because it relates to a very specific task if you're talking something like encryption. But with other less critical tasks, these can bubble up. Ultimately, developing is coming up with solutions to known problems - spelling has little to do with that core exercise. Of course, there's the issue that the commenting may likely follow suit, but that's another story.
I think that truly superb developers should have both qualities but ideal characteristics are rarely easily found. That's why it's necessary for people with different proficiencies are required to spot such mistakes early on. Like the original parent said, a system design document (SDD) would easily nail this from the get-go, especially if multiple people are collaborating on a project. After all, a software development project really shouldn't have only one person involved.
Why idiots? A great developer may not necessarily have a commanding grasp of English, especially if it's a second language for them. That doesn't make them stupid.
Other than that, I agree with everything else you wrote. Planning things out through proper software development techniques should isolate those issues in advance.
Really? That paints a very different story then. When I read expenses, I assumed that those were the extraneous costs of doing business, such as travel, accommodation, food, petrol, mileage, et cetera.
A lot of people are scoffing at the legal payout: 75m (67m effectively, without expenses). While it's incredibly high out of context, it actually makes sense over the course of a 6 year ordeal. I don't know how they structured the award settlement with the firm, but I'll simply go with the idea that it was purely labour-based.
Assume that the average legal fee at the firm is about USD 500 per hour. 67m buys 134k hours which equates to roughly 15.29 consecutive years of labour for one person that works 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I'm guessing this likely had a legal team of 10+ people. If we were to take it at the low estimate of 10 people, that's about 1.5 years of work per team member on the suit - or ~547 working days spread over 6 years.
That sounds a lot more reasonable to me. Plus, class-action isn't all it's cut out to be. Mergers and acquisitions can be much more lucrative.
Google is doomed. That sounded too much like David Brent pointing at the monkey and saying, "those are the kinds of laughs we have around here."
Out of curiosity, what actually constitutes a supercomputer? Is there a certain threshold of OPS that must be achieved above and beyond what's considered a desktop or entertainment solution (five times, ten times)? Is it a matter of hardware structure? Degree of specialization?
I can't find anything that clearly outlines the criteria.
Fair enough - even if it is a sad reality.
I guess the quote, "it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" really does hold true when it comes to corporations in this context.
Would that argument actually hold up in court? According to Wikipedia's entry on copyright (obtaining and enforcing copyright), monetizing the work is not one of the pre-requisites qualification.
If I interpret your statement correctly, aren't artists who do not wish to sell their works wide-open to abuse. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?
I must have missed the details you mentioned - but after re-reading the article about 3 times, I still can't find the part you are referring to. Is it in the MSNBC link or are you quoting another source? Does it talk in more detail about the enforcement?
If that's true, I'm not sure whether to be impressed, disgusted, or simultaneously frightened of such a rapid bureaucratic deployment - especially for something like this. Then again, we are talking about a government that is constantly monitoring everything.
I predict that these band-aid solutions to try and motivate students will backfire when (and if) they continue their education. I remember when I was back in school and the prospect of taking AP courses was supposed to be the pinnacle in difficulty - that they were almost equivalent to the types of courses you would find in first-year university. When I got through them, I was expecting that university would be a simple continuation of that, perhaps somewhat alleviated by the fact that I had learned more than is normally required at that level.
I'll never forget the day when I sat in one of my fist physics classes at university. The professor calmly remarked that 40% was the passing grade. Having done quite well even through the AP programme, I looked at one of my friends with disbelief. I thought, how could they possibly set such a low bar? Needless to say, that overconfident smirk got cleanly wiped off my face when the prospect of hitting well below that threshold became a very real possibility.
But back to my original point. Sure, you can lower the grades today and it *might* garner some additional interest, but it's certainly conveying the wrong message: school isn't supposed to be easy. Nothing worth doing is. Since when are we trying to teach people that if they do something badly enough the system will just be made easier for them to coast through?
Moreover, it'll just make the fallout worse when they get into higher education and get absolutely trounced by material that is no longer dumbed down for the masses - but curved against the best and brightest. Unless, of course, that system is "improved" too.
Assume for a moment that people want to play along. I'm curious what the application process would be like. Do you have some forms to fill out? Do you need to go to a special office? Who will be overseeing this particular application? Who approves it? And probably the most obvious question is: how are they going to enforce it? Is this a case of them summarily making a sweeping statement without thinking about the ramifications of putting together a system to handle the throughput?
As absurd as this issue seems, constructing a legal and bureaucratic process around it sounds even more bizarre.
I would file this under corporate strategy. One could argue that it would have been irresponsible for Microsoft (or any business for that matter) to not attempt to sway a decision that directly impacts their business through lobbying tactics where it has the ability to do so. Plus, there was nothing to indicate that it involved nefarious or illegal methods to do so.
I'm sure many would do the same with their own companies to bolster support for something they created.
I had the exact same reaction when I first this story - why is there so much focus on all the non-gaming features? But then I realized it could be a matter of strategy and control.
In terms of the control, I have often wondered just how much influence the actual console companies can exert over game development houses. They can certainly make it attractive, negotiate exclusivity deals, make it easier to develop for, and profitable to do so, but without owning those companies themselves they'll always just be third-party suppliers.
Which leads me to my main point - perhaps this is part of a larger overall plan to have an extensive feature set ready to go by the time the best games are all available. If I remember correctly, the PS2 didn't really start steam-rolling until all the blockbuster titles arrived on the scene, which took a while. But by that time they were ready. So from that perspective, one could argue that they are doing everything they can to continue to improve the hardware while the developers are getting those titles out the door.
In the next year, we could see the PS3 hit its stride when the price has dropped, the library has hit critical mass, and the feature set is far more extensive than any of its competitors.