What I don't understand (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07, @03:53AM (#4401628) Is why the hell did they even bother to ask that question? What relevence did it have to the rest of the interview? Is this standard interview practice in the US now, to ask any question that contains September 11th in it, just for completeness?
IIRC the fireproofing wasn't inadequate at it's job. It just wasn't designed to cling to a girder after being struck with a few thousand gallons of flaming kerosene travelling at 450+ MPH. The towers didn't fall because they were made of coat hangers and paper-mache. They fell because a psychopath with $300 million dollars and a place to hide wanted them to.
"Is there anything that could have been done in design terms to stop 11 September from happening?"
What the fuck? Just who the hell decided that question could be pertinent to anything? Less "intuitive" airplane controls? Velcro instead of shoelaces for FBI agents? Is there nothing in our culture that can't be profaned in the media? What's next for New Scientist? How the internet could have saved Princess Di?
BS in Physics wih a minor in Computer Science or vice versa and a BS in Biology with an emphasis on Botony? It would have taken no longer to complete, would be clear on a resume, and would have qualified you three years sooner for post-collegiate employment. I mean honestly now, you didn't spend seven years working at StarBuck's did you?
We should be concentrating more on limiting the noise that escapes from computer cases. Doesn't that make so much more sense??
No it doesn't.
Suppressing noise after it's been created will always be grossly inefficient. Sound proofing works by converting the energy in noise to heat. That requires more cooling which in turn creates more noise. I'm not saying that a sound proof case won't work. I just want to point out that the physics of the problem makes that solution a war of attrition with diminishing returns. The benefits of reducing noise right at the source include less waste of power (not spending it on useless air vibration), longer part life (bearings and races aren't banging into each other at high frequency), and lower heat (isn't heat like white noise that even a bionic dog can't hear?), as well as simplicity of case design.
Look for a pin-out diagram on Apple's website. You'll find that ADC isn't a propriatary interface. It's an all-in-one cable. The dongle between card and monitor is a power brick. It probably does some signal refreshing too for the USB and DVI lines but I don't see why it would need to do anything else.
Does that make eMachines the "Dickies" of computers? Dell "The Men's Warehouse"?
The ladies must luuuvvv your classy taste!
Re:3d displays cannot work
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 1
This is correct. It's just like hearing. If you look carefully you'll find that blue objects are very easy to pinpoint spacially while red objects make you stare harder. Think subwoofers and longer wavelengths.
Another Mac writter talking about "Pentiums", sheesh.
Hey you know what? I hear the PII, PIII, PIV, and Athlon all work a bit differently too. Have these guys been living under a rock since Windows 95? Why do Mac oriented columnists always refer to x86 as Pentium?
Apple designs one of the bridge chips on it's motherboards (I can't recall if it is the North or South). The article also mentions a new bus architechture that Apple is working on specifically for what comes after the G4. So yes, Apple does engineer silicon. That doesn't necessarily mean they could replace Motorola themselves.
The parent was referring to an old Apple ad. It portrayed IBM as an Orwellian dictatorial force who's presence on a massive viewing screen was shattered by a Thor-like hammer toss from an invading athlete. IBM may not have been named specifically (I don't recall) but it was clear who they were talking about and it was very dramatic.
I don't think you can come up with an algorithm to generate TRUE randomness
Where are the Slashdot experts? Do we know this or don't we? This seems like a fundamental problem for computer science and I would be surprised to find that it hasn't been addressed in depth.
Slashdot Mirror
by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07, @03:53AM (#4401628) Is why the hell did they even bother to ask that question? What relevence did it have to the rest of the interview? Is this standard interview practice in the US now, to ask any question that contains September 11th in it, just for completeness?
One would think was People Magazine.
I agree. I've always liked the "lever" style doorknob much better.
IIRC the fireproofing wasn't inadequate at it's job. It just wasn't designed to cling to a girder after being struck with a few thousand gallons of flaming kerosene travelling at 450+ MPH. The towers didn't fall because they were made of coat hangers and paper-mache. They fell because a psychopath with $300 million dollars and a place to hide wanted them to.
Like what?
What do you think anyone, anywhere in New York could have done?
What the fuck? Just who the hell decided that question could be pertinent to anything? Less "intuitive" airplane controls? Velcro instead of shoelaces for FBI agents? Is there nothing in our culture that can't be profaned in the media? What's next for New Scientist? How the internet could have saved Princess Di?
BS in Physics wih a minor in Computer Science or vice versa and a BS in Biology with an emphasis on Botony? It would have taken no longer to complete, would be clear on a resume, and would have qualified you three years sooner for post-collegiate employment. I mean honestly now, you didn't spend seven years working at StarBuck's did you?
Kramnik should write a chess program that can play against DeepFritz. DeepFritz should give birth to a chess Grand Master.
No it doesn't.
Suppressing noise after it's been created will always be grossly inefficient. Sound proofing works by converting the energy in noise to heat. That requires more cooling which in turn creates more noise. I'm not saying that a sound proof case won't work. I just want to point out that the physics of the problem makes that solution a war of attrition with diminishing returns. The benefits of reducing noise right at the source include less waste of power (not spending it on useless air vibration), longer part life (bearings and races aren't banging into each other at high frequency), and lower heat (isn't heat like white noise that even a bionic dog can't hear?), as well as simplicity of case design.
Look for a pin-out diagram on Apple's website. You'll find that ADC isn't a propriatary interface. It's an all-in-one cable. The dongle between card and monitor is a power brick. It probably does some signal refreshing too for the USB and DVI lines but I don't see why it would need to do anything else.
It may seem ridiculous...
That doesn't seem ridiculous to me at all.
The ladies must luuuvvv your classy taste!
This is correct. It's just like hearing. If you look carefully you'll find that blue objects are very easy to pinpoint spacially while red objects make you stare harder. Think subwoofers and longer wavelengths.
Does anyone here know why they did this? Why not use BSD by itself?
Hey you know what? I hear the PII, PIII, PIV, and Athlon all work a bit differently too. Have these guys been living under a rock since Windows 95? Why do Mac oriented columnists always refer to x86 as Pentium?
They were all really Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
Aristotelian analysis of The Whole dictates that comes after Prior Analytics and before Posterior Analytics.
makes the fastest GPU on the market.
Surely this inspired the discussion of Iocaine poison in "The Princess Bride".
+5 FUNNY
Apple designs one of the bridge chips on it's motherboards (I can't recall if it is the North or South). The article also mentions a new bus architechture that Apple is working on specifically for what comes after the G4. So yes, Apple does engineer silicon. That doesn't necessarily mean they could replace Motorola themselves.
The parent was referring to an old Apple ad. It portrayed IBM as an Orwellian dictatorial force who's presence on a massive viewing screen was shattered by a Thor-like hammer toss from an invading athlete. IBM may not have been named specifically (I don't recall) but it was clear who they were talking about and it was very dramatic.
Where are the Slashdot experts? Do we know this or don't we? This seems like a fundamental problem for computer science and I would be surprised to find that it hasn't been addressed in depth.
Are you sure the universe is deterministic?
IIRC, before SGI sold the patents in question they went on record saying that they were not stopping nVidia from releasing source.
You actually watched it all the way through to the end?