Think about this. This company is being criticized for trying to offer a product that is a generation *behind* the current technology. Just think if you wanted to buy a microwave, but you were forced to pay double what you wanted to because some government regulation mandated you adhere to a minimum power rating, safety features like locking doors, etc. etc. etc. It would be considered intrusive and there are a ton of people who would just say "Fsck it, I don't really need soggy pizza rolls anyways". That's what we have right now with the FCC. There are millions of Americans who have no internet because it's too expensive, and they have no need for the bandwidth.
OK established corporations, game time, what can *you* offer us?
That's really what social networks are all about though. I apply security settings to my account so that only my friends can view my photos, wall posts, etc. If my *friends* account is compromised, then so is my account, since the attacker now may view my account unrestricted. They may not be compromised in the same way, but the account of every friend of a compromised account is also compromised.
Think of a hack which found a clever way to inject malicious code into a wall post. Every time a friend clicks "like" on this malicious post their account also becomes compromised. Now they can post malicious code on their friends' accounts and thus pass the infection from friend to friend. This is only possible because once the original friends' account is infected the security/privacy settings you've set are partially bypassed.
It's not offtopic. It was a joke about counting dead people towards the total population, since their number of 5 billion cell phones indicates they're counting the dead cell phone in my closet that's never going to be used again.
I'm surprised only 89% of corporate executives at the companies they interviewed indicated they felt corporate leadership was increasingly important at their firm.
I guess for the other 11% their decisions are already maximally important.
All you need is interlaced layers of heat dissipating material. As this material improves one may decrease the frequency with which it's interlaced and thus increase capacity. Not to say this isn't a problem, just to say that the basic idea is simple and known.
That's fine, what does true 3D really gain for you though? Connections at angles other than 90 degrees are less efficient. Perhaps we could construct circuits like this to increase speed of calculations, by implementing algorithms geometrically, but in general we're going to choose digital means to perform these algorithms, since this is how we get one set circuit design to perform so many different tasks.
2.5D is exactly what we're looking for, which is increased capacity. I think parent is correct, but misinformed. We'll see optical/quantum tech for speed increases long before we max out capacity with 2.5D silicon tech.
I'm guessing yeah, probably not. We have a hard enough time creating materials which can be superconductive at a certain temperature, so you can imagine how difficult it is to create a material which can diffract light in different ways every 1/32nd of a second
I mean, even 20 years ago we were still stuck on materials which could provide different diffraction based on viewing angle. With true holography we want something which can provide every viewing angle for an image *and* displays a different image through time.
I tend to agree with your sentiment hairyfeet. And to me, it just boggles there are CEOs of "companies you've never heard of" who are trying to jump in to this market. Most likely we do see only a few early adopters nab this technology. These early adopters aren't necessarily the most tech-savvy folks, rather they are people who are willing and wanting to spend the money to adopt. Because Sony or Panasonic are naturally more recognizable than Aktobe (or whatever lesser known company is trying to jump in) they are the brands who will generate buzz. The smaller companies may provide a good product, but at best they will be adopted by a small enough subset they will remain unknown to the general public. That's best case. Often they produce inferior products, and end up generating the negative word-of-mouth that eventually eliminates them. It would be more intelligent to wait for 2nd or 3rd gen technology to be developed, and attempt to make a splash in *that* market, the market whose shares actually matter in the billion dollar way.
The alternative is to simply be bought out by a larger corporation, and where's the fun in that???
True true true. You get layers of objects, as introducing a full range of depths would introduce artifacts whenever the viewers' head moved in the slightest. With stereo 3D they can at least force some robustness by limiting the levels of depth present at any given time.
It sounds to me like we're all pretty set on shunning 3D in the home until they can actually project a fully holographic image. I would only by a 3DTV if I could watch it without much attention to my viewing angle.
I wonder how many CEOs are reading this thread and whether they recognize holography as the holy grail of 3DHDTV.
Meh, I would probably prefer to donate whatever paltry sum I received to an organization for promoting internet privacy.
Your point still stands, however. It would be nice if they would allow members of a class to vote where their settlement ended up.
Even if they can tell, obviously, that these 1st-gen 3DTVs are a bust, they can't afford to risk missing out on carving out market share right now. Now is the time to make their brand synonymous with 3D TV. The trick will be avoiding being the brand associated with the failings of the first generation.
When I google Google google.com is the first result, followed by 9 more Google sites! And on the right hand side of the screen is an ad saying "MAKE GOOGLE YOUR HOMEPAGE NOW YOU CODDYFOPPED WHELP!!" and on the right hand side are some links to even more Google products and services!!! And then in tiny little letters below everything is "oh yeah, here's a bunch of other search sites" and in even smaller letters (you have to magnify the screen to see it): "hackonlybitchesusebingcoughsneeze".
Man, Google is so evil.
Hear hear!
This is exactly it. Google does not appear to be manipulating search results. I get good results, and what I'm looking for. I'm not an SEO engineer, but I would presume that 'unique visitors' would be a criterion for a site's ranking. From what the parent describes these sites are probably flagged as non-functional or something of the like, and sorted to the bottom of the rankings. Or they ought to be.
Does Google manipulate results to thwart competitors and advance its own businesses? Some competitors to Google are concerned that the company lowers search results listings for certain firms and/or charging higher fees ads they place vs those of Google's partners.
Maybe. You said they have published whitepapers. If you had access to certain stats you could simulate an internet environment and see how pages ranked according to the best practices in those papers. If they match up, more or less, with what Google serves up you then have an indication they are implementing those best practices.
It's funny, because if you're a white, middle-class male you're automatically exempt from like 90% of the free money for college, and yet like 90% of the kids I go to school with are white, middle-class males.
That's because all the money goes to white lower-middle class males like myself. We tend to dress and talk like white middle class males, so it's easy to mistake us for you guys! LOL =P
for the outing of Afghani civilians who have provided intelligence to the US Army. I think we can all agree that he ought to have censored out the names of these civilian informants, though that's assuming you believe America is in the right in this conflict. But in general we Americans believe America is in the right. Be fair to Assange, however. The idea is to publish leaks while they are relevant. He had some ridiculous number of documents to scan through. When it came down to it, I'm sure he made the decision to publish the documents without much review. Perhaps wikileaks could employ a team, a small crowd if you will, to crowdsource review duties to.
I find it unbelievable that the submitter and many of the commenters here rail about stagnating technologies under the guise of improving safety. I mean, you guys have been using software for the past 20 years, right?? Longer? OK, so you've dealt with bugs. In airplane, bug make crash dead people.
You want to improve the safety record by sacrificing a few planeloads of people to get there? (We gotta find the bugs some way, right?)
Airplanes are already one of, if not the, safest mode of transportation. We should improve safety in the air and on the road. I propose we adopt black-box data recorders for our cars. That way we can record everything going on in a car right before a crash. Even better, we could hook it up to a satellite system and have it tell the police every time you go over the speed limit so they could automatically issue you a ticket!
The pilots probably dislike being monitored as much in the cockpit as you would mind being monitored in your car, at your cubicle, or anywhere else and you're a fool to believe there are no civil rights issues. Just because a person puts on a pilot's uniform and steps into a cockpit doesn't somehow make them any less human deserving of rights.
It's almost like they have a whit of common sense.
I'm not surprised this is the case. One of the major schools of thought which developed the wavelet theory underlying MPEG and JPEG was based in France. Ingrid Daubechies, Stephane Mallat, and Yves Meyer were pioneers in this field. In the Preface to the 2nd Edition of Mallat's "A Wavelet Tour Of Signal Processing" he states very clearly that the ideas they were 'discovering' were not new ideas at all. He noted the prior art in the field, and then set to work presenting the new formalism which brought all these once disconnected ideas together into a single framework.
With h.264, WebM, or any of the next-gen standards they're moving on to a multigrid formalism and include predictive filters to increase compression and efficiency. Because the basic idea behind these new codecs is pretty simple and is taught to tens of thousands of scientists who may not even be interested in streaming video, it's ridiculous to claim that any next-gen codec is deserving of a patent.
It's funny. I might use an algorithm resembling WebM to solve the electronic structure of a small molecule, and yet these douches patenting codecs think they've really invented something?
It's only a good deal if you're dead certain about having Xbox Live for the next 2 years. This is essentially just an agreement between you and Microsoft where they agree to let you out of the price hike for one year if you agree to purchase their service again in a year. That's all.
Proteins are not static in crystals formed for crystallography. They are highly dynamic structures, and in the case of proteins many maintain their activity even while crystallized, meaning they have full or nearly full functional mobility. This is one of the great advantages to x-ray crystallography. The object being imaged is not static. There is information about the mobility of atoms, and sometimes even ion occupancies can be deduced from the data.
So while it is possible to induce atypical behavior and structures, you take steps to ensure that the protein in the crystal behaves as protein in the cell. Practically, however, it's not an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Think about this. This company is being criticized for trying to offer a product that is a generation *behind* the current technology. Just think if you wanted to buy a microwave, but you were forced to pay double what you wanted to because some government regulation mandated you adhere to a minimum power rating, safety features like locking doors, etc. etc. etc. It would be considered intrusive and there are a ton of people who would just say "Fsck it, I don't really need soggy pizza rolls anyways". That's what we have right now with the FCC. There are millions of Americans who have no internet because it's too expensive, and they have no need for the bandwidth. OK established corporations, game time, what can *you* offer us?
That's really what social networks are all about though. I apply security settings to my account so that only my friends can view my photos, wall posts, etc. If my *friends* account is compromised, then so is my account, since the attacker now may view my account unrestricted. They may not be compromised in the same way, but the account of every friend of a compromised account is also compromised. Think of a hack which found a clever way to inject malicious code into a wall post. Every time a friend clicks "like" on this malicious post their account also becomes compromised. Now they can post malicious code on their friends' accounts and thus pass the infection from friend to friend. This is only possible because once the original friends' account is infected the security/privacy settings you've set are partially bypassed.
It's not offtopic. It was a joke about counting dead people towards the total population, since their number of 5 billion cell phones indicates they're counting the dead cell phone in my closet that's never going to be used again.
"And the report also estimates that there are 5 billion cellphones in the world — though some people may own more than one."
Yeah -- I'm pretty sure that worldwide ownership rate of cell phones is somewhat less than 73%.
Yeah, the number of humans who are dead and gone now without a cell phone brings it down some.
I don't want to be processed by SkyNet for the sake of advertising!!!!
It's getting posted here precisely because it won't pass the review process for a major journal.
I'm surprised only 89% of corporate executives at the companies they interviewed indicated they felt corporate leadership was increasingly important at their firm. I guess for the other 11% their decisions are already maximally important.
All you need is interlaced layers of heat dissipating material. As this material improves one may decrease the frequency with which it's interlaced and thus increase capacity. Not to say this isn't a problem, just to say that the basic idea is simple and known.
That's fine, what does true 3D really gain for you though? Connections at angles other than 90 degrees are less efficient. Perhaps we could construct circuits like this to increase speed of calculations, by implementing algorithms geometrically, but in general we're going to choose digital means to perform these algorithms, since this is how we get one set circuit design to perform so many different tasks. 2.5D is exactly what we're looking for, which is increased capacity. I think parent is correct, but misinformed. We'll see optical/quantum tech for speed increases long before we max out capacity with 2.5D silicon tech.
I'm guessing yeah, probably not. We have a hard enough time creating materials which can be superconductive at a certain temperature, so you can imagine how difficult it is to create a material which can diffract light in different ways every 1/32nd of a second I mean, even 20 years ago we were still stuck on materials which could provide different diffraction based on viewing angle. With true holography we want something which can provide every viewing angle for an image *and* displays a different image through time.
I tend to agree with your sentiment hairyfeet. And to me, it just boggles there are CEOs of "companies you've never heard of" who are trying to jump in to this market. Most likely we do see only a few early adopters nab this technology. These early adopters aren't necessarily the most tech-savvy folks, rather they are people who are willing and wanting to spend the money to adopt. Because Sony or Panasonic are naturally more recognizable than Aktobe (or whatever lesser known company is trying to jump in) they are the brands who will generate buzz. The smaller companies may provide a good product, but at best they will be adopted by a small enough subset they will remain unknown to the general public. That's best case. Often they produce inferior products, and end up generating the negative word-of-mouth that eventually eliminates them. It would be more intelligent to wait for 2nd or 3rd gen technology to be developed, and attempt to make a splash in *that* market, the market whose shares actually matter in the billion dollar way. The alternative is to simply be bought out by a larger corporation, and where's the fun in that???
True true true. You get layers of objects, as introducing a full range of depths would introduce artifacts whenever the viewers' head moved in the slightest. With stereo 3D they can at least force some robustness by limiting the levels of depth present at any given time. It sounds to me like we're all pretty set on shunning 3D in the home until they can actually project a fully holographic image. I would only by a 3DTV if I could watch it without much attention to my viewing angle. I wonder how many CEOs are reading this thread and whether they recognize holography as the holy grail of 3DHDTV.
Meh, I would probably prefer to donate whatever paltry sum I received to an organization for promoting internet privacy. Your point still stands, however. It would be nice if they would allow members of a class to vote where their settlement ended up.
Even if they can tell, obviously, that these 1st-gen 3DTVs are a bust, they can't afford to risk missing out on carving out market share right now. Now is the time to make their brand synonymous with 3D TV. The trick will be avoiding being the brand associated with the failings of the first generation.
Hahah. They're too scared to *not* put out a crappy product.
When I google Google google.com is the first result, followed by 9 more Google sites! And on the right hand side of the screen is an ad saying "MAKE GOOGLE YOUR HOMEPAGE NOW YOU CODDYFOPPED WHELP!!" and on the right hand side are some links to even more Google products and services!!! And then in tiny little letters below everything is "oh yeah, here's a bunch of other search sites" and in even smaller letters (you have to magnify the screen to see it): "hackonlybitchesusebingcoughsneeze". Man, Google is so evil.
Hear hear! This is exactly it. Google does not appear to be manipulating search results. I get good results, and what I'm looking for. I'm not an SEO engineer, but I would presume that 'unique visitors' would be a criterion for a site's ranking. From what the parent describes these sites are probably flagged as non-functional or something of the like, and sorted to the bottom of the rankings. Or they ought to be.
Does Google manipulate results to thwart competitors and advance its own businesses? Some competitors to Google are concerned that the company lowers search results listings for certain firms and/or charging higher fees ads they place vs those of Google's partners.
Maybe. You said they have published whitepapers. If you had access to certain stats you could simulate an internet environment and see how pages ranked according to the best practices in those papers. If they match up, more or less, with what Google serves up you then have an indication they are implementing those best practices.
It's funny, because if you're a white, middle-class male you're automatically exempt from like 90% of the free money for college, and yet like 90% of the kids I go to school with are white, middle-class males.
That's because all the money goes to white lower-middle class males like myself. We tend to dress and talk like white middle class males, so it's easy to mistake us for you guys! LOL =P
for the outing of Afghani civilians who have provided intelligence to the US Army. I think we can all agree that he ought to have censored out the names of these civilian informants, though that's assuming you believe America is in the right in this conflict. But in general we Americans believe America is in the right. Be fair to Assange, however. The idea is to publish leaks while they are relevant. He had some ridiculous number of documents to scan through. When it came down to it, I'm sure he made the decision to publish the documents without much review. Perhaps wikileaks could employ a team, a small crowd if you will, to crowdsource review duties to.
I find it unbelievable that the submitter and many of the commenters here rail about stagnating technologies under the guise of improving safety. I mean, you guys have been using software for the past 20 years, right?? Longer? OK, so you've dealt with bugs. In airplane, bug make crash dead people. You want to improve the safety record by sacrificing a few planeloads of people to get there? (We gotta find the bugs some way, right?) Airplanes are already one of, if not the, safest mode of transportation. We should improve safety in the air and on the road. I propose we adopt black-box data recorders for our cars. That way we can record everything going on in a car right before a crash. Even better, we could hook it up to a satellite system and have it tell the police every time you go over the speed limit so they could automatically issue you a ticket! The pilots probably dislike being monitored as much in the cockpit as you would mind being monitored in your car, at your cubicle, or anywhere else and you're a fool to believe there are no civil rights issues. Just because a person puts on a pilot's uniform and steps into a cockpit doesn't somehow make them any less human deserving of rights.
It's almost like they have a whit of common sense. I'm not surprised this is the case. One of the major schools of thought which developed the wavelet theory underlying MPEG and JPEG was based in France. Ingrid Daubechies, Stephane Mallat, and Yves Meyer were pioneers in this field. In the Preface to the 2nd Edition of Mallat's "A Wavelet Tour Of Signal Processing" he states very clearly that the ideas they were 'discovering' were not new ideas at all. He noted the prior art in the field, and then set to work presenting the new formalism which brought all these once disconnected ideas together into a single framework. With h.264, WebM, or any of the next-gen standards they're moving on to a multigrid formalism and include predictive filters to increase compression and efficiency. Because the basic idea behind these new codecs is pretty simple and is taught to tens of thousands of scientists who may not even be interested in streaming video, it's ridiculous to claim that any next-gen codec is deserving of a patent. It's funny. I might use an algorithm resembling WebM to solve the electronic structure of a small molecule, and yet these douches patenting codecs think they've really invented something?
It's only a good deal if you're dead certain about having Xbox Live for the next 2 years. This is essentially just an agreement between you and Microsoft where they agree to let you out of the price hike for one year if you agree to purchase their service again in a year. That's all.
Do you really need to make much headway when you're soaking the oil up?
Proteins are not static in crystals formed for crystallography. They are highly dynamic structures, and in the case of proteins many maintain their activity even while crystallized, meaning they have full or nearly full functional mobility. This is one of the great advantages to x-ray crystallography. The object being imaged is not static. There is information about the mobility of atoms, and sometimes even ion occupancies can be deduced from the data. So while it is possible to induce atypical behavior and structures, you take steps to ensure that the protein in the crystal behaves as protein in the cell. Practically, however, it's not an issue.