Do away with physical storage beyond backups of your library... Ok, thats a little facetious; but it *is* the solution I selected.
As an aside, where the hell did the name "jewel case" come from. Its cheap arse polystyrene with some coloured paper and a lump of polycarbonate and aluminium inside. There is nothing even vaguely jewel-like about it?!!?
... BAN Access. One day the database "created just for a simple task" may become the repository of mission critical business data. Access is inappropriate and incompetent to the task of being a "database" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Training is critical; ensure staff recieve spreadsheet (excel or your chosen open source brew) training in reasonable depth... Then encourage them to use spreadsheets for "simple tasks" involving data storeage. Making some "standard" macros for query dialogs is useful here. Then if the data does become important, it is a trivial task to move it into a real database (unlike access!).
One solution I have seen effectively used is the creation of a "general" database using mysql and a rather clever PHP front end. The database allowed for 8 "fields"; each field was really three fields, Data descriptor, Data name and Data type. Essentially the ID-10-T entered a name for the data field, its data and selected a type from a drop down box. They could select previous "name and type" combinations they had used. This then spawns a copy of this "standard" database with user access privelges set to a default rule; another interface allowed advanced users to adjust this. Finally a generic PHP gateway presented them a data entry/query sheet that formatted itself based on type... Sure, it was probably alot of work, once; but it ensured that all future databases created were in "real" databases that were relatively easy to maintain for the IT department.
Essentially, my suggestion is to encourage them to work with excel or similar with a few standard macros/dialogs created to allow data entry and search to be "simple" (small up front work by IT, maintenance required); or create a more complex "standardised" database and access system (alot of up front effort, minimal maintenance). This trades effort for ease of future scaleability and maintenance.
... Its not just about making robots "smart" enough to avoid injuring humans.
Ok, a slightly OT rant considering TFA which was a fairly long winded wankfest without any real purpose; other than suggesting there might be some liability considerations when building consumer automation... hands up those who are surprised...
Anyway, simply put, anyone who CLIMBS A BARRIER into a working area will at best be injured or at worst die. We (Engineers) put safety barriers around equipment for a reason.
Its deeper than this though; naturally if the barrier is opened there need to exist interlocks to prevent equipment operation. However, as any industrial engineer knows, there is then the risk of an idiot (over zealous maintenance tech, ID-10-T afflicted worker, anyone) remaining INSIDE the barrier after its sealed. To prevent this we often require maintenance techs to wear RFID tags so that the equipment interlocks know they are still in there (in fact, we often design flashing red lights and buzzers to alert us to the near miss and, if it turns out they were being stupid, we issue warnings or fire the nutbars).
Other solutions exist, on most equipment I design I utilise physical barriers only to prevent ejecta from coming into contact with humans; I use laser volume scanners and/or pressure mats to deny the area to humans; or, more accurately, to deny the equipment the ability to operate with a human in the viscinity. These are then interlocked to prevent previously mentioned ID-10-T's from disengaging the safeties (the number of fuckwits who disable machine safety systems is truly staggering, fortunately we can fire them for this and they become SEP).
Anyway, the short version is that in most western nations, Occupational Safety legislation requires we create both *safe* and *fail safe* (not the same thing) machinery with appropriate guards and interlocks. In Australia we are also required to take "reasonable" (to an equivalently qualified professional) steps to prevent tampering to bypass safeties(government as parent, we should really just let the idiots kill themselves so they dont breed!). This includes robots; seeing as robots are merely machine components; no matter how clever they become, we will still require EXTERNAL safety systems and interlocks to prevent humans from being injured, I want my robot controller to control the fucking robot; *I* will make sure it stops if someone gets in the way. Just make sure that the "emergency stop" function on your robot positively stops it, not just removes power, the rest is Not Your Problem (unless you are building the machine too, then it *is* your problem). No sensible Engineer relies on the same system for operational control AND safety, when there is Human-At-Risk you never want a single failure point between you and a fatality. Imagine if they relied on a single valve (albeit with redundant controls) to prevent venting the cabin to atmosphere in a large european aircraft... but I digress.
Simply, for home appliance robots; different matter and wholy a fair consideration. For industrial robots, safety is the job of the Engineer designing the implementation or machine, an important but SEPARATE function; If you jam the robot with all this cruft, it will make it harder to program it to do the job at hand which will increase the probability of errors which will reduce process quality and yield increased defect counts in products.
As with everything, simplicity of the components is the key; complexity comes from arranging simple, manageable parts. If you set out to cure world hunger, you will fail; if you set out to improve crop yields in drought conditions, you have a much higher probability of succeeding...
Isn't their business model to provide services consumers demand which can generate revenue by having advertising attached to? As such, isn't this merely wise product development?
Step 1) Staff generate seemingly cool idea in disctretionary time Step 2) Polish candidate to functional stage and release to gauge public interest Step 3) ??? (Cackle madly as everyone tries to fit your wisdom into an existing business model and looks confused) Step 4) Include adwords and Profit!
Google are bloody good at what they do; and this is because they realise the budda truth, that they are not a software company!
Google ARE NOT a software company; they arent even really software developers. They only do this as a means to an end.
Google are a classic service provider and this has the potential to be another "killer app". Not nescessarily for businesses; but for, say, small community clubs, sports teams, roleplaying gamers, online gamers... to name just a few.
This is about Google getting something most other IT organisations dont, that there is such a thing as the "voice of the customer" and if you listen to it, there just may be money to be made to answering.
And like the Free To Air media companies before them, when you give the consumer what they want and OTHER ORGANISATIONS will pay you to include a message! Everybody wins when its done well, we get Idol! when its done badly.
Also, google will get to do what one poster has noted; add this to their intranet appliances and corporations can buy a box to replace ALL of their office licenses. Some businesses who simply dont NEED 99% of the functionality offered will consider this; and private individuals almost certainly will...
Why spend $400 bucks for the ability to keep track of your household budget and write resume's and letters (not everyone has heard of open source, remember!) when t3h Google does it.
Besides, its funny when Google riverdance all over Microsoft's genitals as a side effect of good business. err! jak.
...of having the efficient Software Vendor solve these issues?
Isn't that the advantage of proprietary software over, say, gnu/linux?
Thats what the marketroids tell us anyway...
Foolishness aside; I suspect it is possible to create a filter device below the USB storage device which starts drive mapping from z and works down (for a knee jerk) or which reads currently mapped drives from explorer's context and starts there.
This would require significantly more knowledge of that crufty beast the registry than I have; but Im sure there are some of those out there.
This is the most amusing story Ive encountered in ages. The content is crap, but the delicious irony of the subject and the method of delivery warms my cynical soul!
...but have you considered trying to contact the EVE-Online developers at CCP.
Their game is little more than a MASSIVE database application supporting tens of thousands of simultaneous users... They have lag issues but, on the whole, seem to be scaling bloody well.
... this party, which currently sits with an embarassingly small majority against a government with control of both houses, are almost certainly unable to win government with their current front bench; especially when you consider they failed to beat the sitting government who won with a platform of unpopular industrial relations reform.
Therefore, harebrained schemes like this are the fantasy of the minority side of the Lower House. Nothing to see here.
The are currently trying to disintegrate through public factional bloodletting and they have a dire need to distract the public; the fact that this article made it to slashdot suggests their spin doctors are still effective.
of googling for my IRL name and getting a hit which is actually me??
Well, infact, you have to go 12 pages (7 if I click results from australia only) in for the first one which is me. This hardly seems like a successful tactic, how do you know it is them?? Hell, since most of the hits are about Successful CEO's, PHD mathematicians and police force heroes, it probably makes me look good:)
Sure, googling my handle results in hits which are all me; but there is no feasible way an employer will be able to connect my handle with me. Not without some fairly invasive and skilled investigation. Investigation that just isn't warranted for all but the most security conscious of jobs.
It strikes me that this was a good opportunity to use a spurious connection to make a sensational article. Nothing to see here.
You can only do away with the analyst if the CAD operator is competent to correctly interpret the results.
The problem with simulation is just that, it is *not* real world performance. Gaining accurate and useful data from FEA or CFD requires competent, skilled and highly trained operators (yes, all 3). Otherwise all you get are pretty coloured pictures.
In line analysis tools built into CAD for near real time analysis of models is nothing new. Its been around for the better part of a decade.
The difference here seems to be swapping your traditional mesh for an interlinked series of geometric primatives; essentially trading one form of approximation for another.
More power to them if this is indeed faster and equally accurate; but I doubt it will be, most of the difficulty these days is not mesh generation (damn near automatic) or Finite Element mathematics (sparse matrix solvers on modern CPUs make a meal of such calculations)... the time comes from the hideously complex multi-physics equations themselves; and these must remain common for equivalent accuracy.
Either way, the press release was typical oversold hype, but the tool SEEMS like it could be useful in low end design descisions.
...the state government offers training and assistance; particularly to IT firms in this area. If you are in this state, try chasing down the appropriate contacts at the Department of Trade and Economic Development.
Several of my colleagues have had their assistance in getting business plans to run down v.c.'s and such...
...You seem to be seeing it as a negative, yet standardisation is the Engineers greatest tool; without standardisation, Eli Whitney wouldn't have been able to manufacture weapons fast enough to win the American Civil War; Henry Ford wouldn't have produced a cost effective automobile; Toyota wouldn't be the insanely successful company they are today, of course, they standardised on a method of doing things, not a specific type of tool... Anyway, enough engineering bias, let me try and make a point:)
Could a layman not ask the question of multiple programming languages being utilised as follows; why do you need to use thirteen different tools to solve the same problem thirteen different times? This is just as foolish... Note I am not talking about solving DIFFERENT problems...
Standardisation is NOT INTENDED as a straight jacket, however it does intend to ensure that faced with the same situation you use the same solution. It is about portability and interoperability, it is about ensuring that if you get hit by a bus an equally competent colleague can pick up where you left off with minimal learning curve. Naturally you should employ process improvement methods after each activity to fine tune the methods!! that goes without saying. Anyway the true Engineer only uses appropriate tools to solve a problem. Sometimes "appropriate" means the tool which is perhaps not the most ideal immediately, but creates the least ongoing burden (for maintenance, interoperability, etc...).
The descision to standardise should be made for one reason only, to IMPROVE your businesses products or processes. If you do not gain from standardising, do not standardise. Likewise, do not resist standardisation just because it is out of your comfort zone, because it makes YOUR life harder even as it yields overall benefits or because you PREFER tool a over tool b. It most certainly not be resisted because it makes your job less secure.:) Like everything else in business, there is only one reason to do ANYTHING, you take an action because it yields an overall, objective benefit. Of course, I, personally, take the long view to "overall" and often recommend and sign off on short to mid term pain for long term gain.
There was a small burst of outages late last year, but other than the daily maintenance, its not usual that the account pages are down.
They have a downtime every day from 1100 to 1200 UTC that sometimes runs long like yesterday (if they are deploying hardware upgrades or bugwrangling the cluster).
Speaking as another EVE player, there are niggles and annoyances, yes. But as CCP continue to take positive steps to resolve the issues Im going to agree with TFA.
Hmm... interesting point of view except that AFAIK top viticulturalists locally (Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; you know, where the best red wines in the world are made;) can identify from tasting the general region of the vinyard which grew the fruit; and such tastings are ALWAYS carried out as "pepsi challenges". Of course, these are guys which taste wine during the fermenting process; which takes a cast iron stomach... so they may not be average people...
Either way, whilst it IS possible to produce mature, full bodied wine in an accelerated timeframe; it is NOT possible IMHO to age a wine to a drinkable state automagically; not without actually adding chemicals... we DONT do that to our wines (well, small ammounts of preservative are permitted, but all additives must be clearly noted on the bottle), except for casks; but goon isnt really wine.
Now, the Adelaide University (IIRC) has developed techniques to allow full bodied Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon to peak in 3~5 years; whilst they are inferior to wines made in the usual way which peak in 7~10 years, they are still drinkable. Mostly it comes down to the fruit, if you are using fruit from a 140 year old Shiraz vine (wood is perhaps a more accurate term for grapes like this), there is nothing other than slow aging that will mellow the wine without nasty side effects... oh! wait, those fools in Europe kept fighting wars over their best vinyards, so they dont have any vines that old, how would they know??...:)
Either way, Red wines still need to age in oak to develop their character, or you end up with pale, light swill without body, may as well drink white wine. So, when bottled they will be 2~3 years old anyway; but still, I would take alot of convincing that you could add another 2 years to it with any kind of machine that doesn't involve treating or diluting it with chemicals.
I suppose you could just filter out the solids and make it smoother... wouldnt help the character though. Besides, thats what decanters are for...
Oh yeah, here in Oz, wine and beer have the same social status;) well, wine and ale's to be accurate; a tallk frosty glass of Coopers Pale Ale sits very well next to a fine glass of Hill of Grace... Course, I always knew Australia was the side of the fence on which the grass is greener/parochial:)
Yes, granted, RFID does have some privacy implications when applied in P.O.S. applications, hospitals and such like.
However, AFAIK, by far and above the largest use is in automotive security, logistics and workflow handling. Boxes dont care if people know whats in them, but it sure as shit makes the warehouse easier to manage if your robot/forklift knows what is in those boxes and automagically tracks stock in and out. Even walmart would still use RFID even if they weren't allowed to use it on stock in shop, because the would still use it for shipment and bulk stock management.
Most of the increased use of RFID will still remain back office, in factories, warehouses and other transit points. Put your tinfoil hats away.
*IF* the article discussed governments planning to RFID tag humans behind the left ear, then, perhaps, we would have a major issue.
However, the small number of privacy impacting cases aside, RFID is an incredibly flexible technology. In factory workflow planning, it allows us to remove human error from data logging. The workstation AUTOMATICALLY presents you with the correct fittings for component G because it knows you are assembling component G and not component W. Barcodes dont even come close.
The inventory management system knows what stock levels you have in the Finished Goods Inventory (FGI) because it has scanned the RFID bearing kanban's as the goods were loaded into the FGI racks.
Even if EVERY SINGLE application which impacted privacy was disallowed and canned; RFID use would still exponentially increase as people replace laser based barcode systems with RFID because it is more reliable (in a maintenance sense), easier and ultimately cheaper. Furthermore, it allows for far more efficient automated handling systems to be designed because you no longer have the limitation that every box needs to be in a direct line of sight for the scanner.
So, perhaps, just perhaps, the increased use of RFID *MIGHT* be in aid of improving the efficiency of the manufacturing and logistics industry and *NOT* to track where you take your pr0n. Considering how much whining about offshoring goes on here, you would think productivity technologies might get a better hearing.
I contend that the upgrade treadmill with users who accept getting shit upon by their suppliers and smile is a dead end path. Most other Industries start in this state (You can have any colour as long as its black), but once something becomes enough of a commodity, inevetably the voice of the customer starts to win out. Either they sue you into the stoneage for destroying their billion dollar enterprise with your crap thats not fit for purpose or they begin to understand that defects COST them and purchase from the folks without them.
Two hundred and fifty years ago, no-one cared if seventeen workers got shredded a day in the cotton `gin, so ole' Eli didnt bother with safety features and, if he had, probably wouldnt have been successful. I imagine even 100 years ago you bought the cheap machine before the one that had extra features to avoid grinding workers into your dogfood (cheap raw materials!). Now days, a manufacturer can demand a massive premium by being significantly and demonstrably safer than the competitor...
Whilst Human-At-Risk tends to be a bigger motivator than money on an individual scale, I guarantee corporations consider Caiptal-At-Risk a much more critical issue; therefore, once they realise that bugs cost them more than paying for well developed software, they will begin to demand it.
of course, how fscking obvious??!?? We game mostly in "HD" anyway unless we play on consoles or handhelds. Hell, I am playing nethack in 1280x1024 as we speak:)
How many pc gamers with a half decent rig play at 720x576 (or local equivalent??), which is the maximum resolution of PAL... no, we play at 1280x1024 on our LCD monitors or 1600x1200 on our massive CRTs with SLI 7800GTX's. It is inevetable that console games will want to improve resolution to match those capable on PC games; they would rather you bought an XBOX 360 and 6 games than SLI 7800GTX!!
Why are we even having this discussion?? even in Australia entry level 1280x1024 27" HD LCD TV's are now below $1000.00 (AUD); most nations will switch of analogue transmissions in the not to distant future...
Ah well, clearly a slow slashdot news day/rant:) err! jak
Forgetting the rest of the clearly self serving advertisment (nice work editors!), I want to focus on 160 GB...
"It has more disk space on it's two (yes two) hard drives than any laptop and almost any desktop."
What the fuck is this guy on?? I havent seen a desktop with that little hard drive space in over 4 years. Sure, my personal boxes are fairly high end and Ive had over a terabyte for a while now. However, even the old HP corporate shitbox on my desk has 200GB.
Not to mention calling something with a 2+ year old GPU a "gaming machine"; *IF* it had a 7800 in it, I might be willing to entertain the notion...
FFS, my laptop (a 2 year old centrino) has 120GB in just one drive...
I have no problem with a good review, but hyperbole and overselling like this is ridiculous. We need to do a better job of filtering this crap out!!
Ok, the christian right backbenchers and the "family first" (a front for a local charismatic christian cult) senators support this.
However there is ALREADY legislation in place where it was decided quite equivocally NOT to filter the net (when the minister responsible was actually a fairly psychotic christian too) for such nastiness and focus of a code of practice for local ISPs and Web hosts for managing tricks like domain hijacking and focus on education of parents on how to restric access to such material should they choose.
Once again, our Slashdot editors are the staunch bastion of reason, filtering the noise to present us with meaningless tripe:)
Singapore is Grandma the state, all others are pretenders:)
Slashdot Mirror
Do away with physical storage beyond backups of your library... Ok, thats a little facetious; but it *is* the solution I selected.
As an aside, where the hell did the name "jewel case" come from. Its cheap arse polystyrene with some coloured paper and a lump of polycarbonate and aluminium inside. There is nothing even vaguely jewel-like about it?!!?
err!
jak.
... BAN Access. One day the database "created just for a simple task" may become the repository of mission critical business data. Access is inappropriate and incompetent to the task of being a "database" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Training is critical; ensure staff recieve spreadsheet (excel or your chosen open source brew) training in reasonable depth... Then encourage them to use spreadsheets for "simple tasks" involving data storeage. Making some "standard" macros for query dialogs is useful here. Then if the data does become important, it is a trivial task to move it into a real database (unlike access!).
One solution I have seen effectively used is the creation of a "general" database using mysql and a rather clever PHP front end. The database allowed for 8 "fields"; each field was really three fields, Data descriptor, Data name and Data type. Essentially the ID-10-T entered a name for the data field, its data and selected a type from a drop down box. They could select previous "name and type" combinations they had used. This then spawns a copy of this "standard" database with user access privelges set to a default rule; another interface allowed advanced users to adjust this. Finally a generic PHP gateway presented them a data entry/query sheet that formatted itself based on type... Sure, it was probably alot of work, once; but it ensured that all future databases created were in "real" databases that were relatively easy to maintain for the IT department.
Essentially, my suggestion is to encourage them to work with excel or similar with a few standard macros/dialogs created to allow data entry and search to be "simple" (small up front work by IT, maintenance required); or create a more complex "standardised" database and access system (alot of up front effort, minimal maintenance). This trades effort for ease of future scaleability and maintenance.
Just my $0.02
err!
jak
... Its not just about making robots "smart" enough to avoid injuring humans.
:)
Ok, a slightly OT rant considering TFA which was a fairly long winded wankfest without any real purpose; other than suggesting there might be some liability considerations when building consumer automation... hands up those who are surprised...
Anyway, simply put, anyone who CLIMBS A BARRIER into a working area will at best be injured or at worst die. We (Engineers) put safety barriers around equipment for a reason.
Its deeper than this though; naturally if the barrier is opened there need to exist interlocks to prevent equipment operation. However, as any industrial engineer knows, there is then the risk of an idiot (over zealous maintenance tech, ID-10-T afflicted worker, anyone) remaining INSIDE the barrier after its sealed. To prevent this we often require maintenance techs to wear RFID tags so that the equipment interlocks know they are still in there (in fact, we often design flashing red lights and buzzers to alert us to the near miss and, if it turns out they were being stupid, we issue warnings or fire the nutbars).
Other solutions exist, on most equipment I design I utilise physical barriers only to prevent ejecta from coming into contact with humans; I use laser volume scanners and/or pressure mats to deny the area to humans; or, more accurately, to deny the equipment the ability to operate with a human in the viscinity. These are then interlocked to prevent previously mentioned ID-10-T's from disengaging the safeties (the number of fuckwits who disable machine safety systems is truly staggering, fortunately we can fire them for this and they become SEP).
Anyway, the short version is that in most western nations, Occupational Safety legislation requires we create both *safe* and *fail safe* (not the same thing) machinery with appropriate guards and interlocks. In Australia we are also required to take "reasonable" (to an equivalently qualified professional) steps to prevent tampering to bypass safeties(government as parent, we should really just let the idiots kill themselves so they dont breed!). This includes robots; seeing as robots are merely machine components; no matter how clever they become, we will still require EXTERNAL safety systems and interlocks to prevent humans from being injured, I want my robot controller to control the fucking robot; *I* will make sure it stops if someone gets in the way. Just make sure that the "emergency stop" function on your robot positively stops it, not just removes power, the rest is Not Your Problem (unless you are building the machine too, then it *is* your problem). No sensible Engineer relies on the same system for operational control AND safety, when there is Human-At-Risk you never want a single failure point between you and a fatality. Imagine if they relied on a single valve (albeit with redundant controls) to prevent venting the cabin to atmosphere in a large european aircraft... but I digress.
Simply, for home appliance robots; different matter and wholy a fair consideration. For industrial robots, safety is the job of the Engineer designing the implementation or machine, an important but SEPARATE function; If you jam the robot with all this cruft, it will make it harder to program it to do the job at hand which will increase the probability of errors which will reduce process quality and yield increased defect counts in products.
As with everything, simplicity of the components is the key; complexity comes from arranging simple, manageable parts. If you set out to cure world hunger, you will fail; if you set out to improve crop yields in drought conditions, you have a much higher probability of succeeding...
End rant
err!
jak.
Isn't their business model to provide services consumers demand which can generate revenue by having advertising attached to? As such, isn't this merely wise product development?
Step 1) Staff generate seemingly cool idea in disctretionary time
Step 2) Polish candidate to functional stage and release to gauge public interest
Step 3) ???
(Cackle madly as everyone tries to fit your wisdom into an existing business model and looks confused)
Step 4) Include adwords and Profit!
Google are bloody good at what they do; and this is because they realise the budda truth, that they are not a software company!
err!
jak.
by posters AND microsoft apparently.
Google ARE NOT a software company; they arent even really software developers. They only do this as a means to an end.
Google are a classic service provider and this has the potential to be another "killer app". Not nescessarily for businesses; but for, say, small community clubs, sports teams, roleplaying gamers, online gamers... to name just a few.
This is about Google getting something most other IT organisations dont, that there is such a thing as the "voice of the customer" and if you listen to it, there just may be money to be made to answering.
And like the Free To Air media companies before them, when you give the consumer what they want and OTHER ORGANISATIONS will pay you to include a message! Everybody wins when its done well, we get Idol! when its done badly.
Also, google will get to do what one poster has noted; add this to their intranet appliances and corporations can buy a box to replace ALL of their office licenses. Some businesses who simply dont NEED 99% of the functionality offered will consider this; and private individuals almost certainly will...
Why spend $400 bucks for the ability to keep track of your household budget and write resume's and letters (not everyone has heard of open source, remember!) when t3h Google does it.
Besides, its funny when Google riverdance all over Microsoft's genitals as a side effect of good business.
err!
jak.
...because THIS could be the source of his face shooting obsession :)
:)
Although the specific reference is to mouth shooting!!
Just a thought
err!
jak.
...of having the efficient Software Vendor solve these issues?
Isn't that the advantage of proprietary software over, say, gnu/linux?
Thats what the marketroids tell us anyway...
Foolishness aside; I suspect it is possible to create a filter device below the USB storage device which starts drive mapping from z and works down (for a knee jerk) or which reads currently mapped drives from explorer's context and starts there.
This would require significantly more knowledge of that crufty beast the registry than I have; but Im sure there are some of those out there.
err!
jak.
I'll give you fucking irony!
This is the most amusing story Ive encountered in ages. The content is crap, but the delicious irony of the subject and the method of delivery warms my cynical soul!
Id settle for a version of KOTOR II that actually works :)
...but have you considered trying to contact the EVE-Online developers at CCP.
Their game is little more than a MASSIVE database application supporting tens of thousands of simultaneous users... They have lag issues but, on the whole, seem to be scaling bloody well.
... this party, which currently sits with an embarassingly small majority against a government with control of both houses, are almost certainly unable to win government with their current front bench; especially when you consider they failed to beat the sitting government who won with a platform of unpopular industrial relations reform.
Therefore, harebrained schemes like this are the fantasy of the minority side of the Lower House. Nothing to see here.
The are currently trying to disintegrate through public factional bloodletting and they have a dire need to distract the public; the fact that this article made it to slashdot suggests their spin doctors are still effective.
Just my $0.02.
err!
jak.
of googling for my IRL name and getting a hit which is actually me??
:)
Well, infact, you have to go 12 pages (7 if I click results from australia only) in for the first one which is me. This hardly seems like a successful tactic, how do you know it is them?? Hell, since most of the hits are about Successful CEO's, PHD mathematicians and police force heroes, it probably makes me look good
Sure, googling my handle results in hits which are all me; but there is no feasible way an employer will be able to connect my handle with me. Not without some fairly invasive and skilled investigation. Investigation that just isn't warranted for all but the most security conscious of jobs.
It strikes me that this was a good opportunity to use a spurious connection to make a sensational article. Nothing to see here.
err!
jak.
...cluetrain manifesto.
Blogs like this are the effect; the cause of which is the corporate stupidity and closed wall, rigid heirarchy that they ridicule in their book.
Not that I completely agree with locke et al; but they make some very good points.
err!
jak.
You can only do away with the analyst if the CAD operator is competent to correctly interpret the results.
The problem with simulation is just that, it is *not* real world performance. Gaining accurate and useful data from FEA or CFD requires competent, skilled and highly trained operators (yes, all 3). Otherwise all you get are pretty coloured pictures.
In line analysis tools built into CAD for near real time analysis of models is nothing new. Its been around for the better part of a decade.
The difference here seems to be swapping your traditional mesh for an interlinked series of geometric primatives; essentially trading one form of approximation for another.
More power to them if this is indeed faster and equally accurate; but I doubt it will be, most of the difficulty these days is not mesh generation (damn near automatic) or Finite Element mathematics (sparse matrix solvers on modern CPUs make a meal of such calculations)... the time comes from the hideously complex multi-physics equations themselves; and these must remain common for equivalent accuracy.
Either way, the press release was typical oversold hype, but the tool SEEMS like it could be useful in low end design descisions.
err!
jak.
...the state government offers training and assistance; particularly to IT firms in this area. If you are in this state, try chasing down the appropriate contacts at the Department of Trade and Economic Development.
Several of my colleagues have had their assistance in getting business plans to run down v.c.'s and such...
...You seem to be seeing it as a negative, yet standardisation is the Engineers greatest tool; without standardisation, Eli Whitney wouldn't have been able to manufacture weapons fast enough to win the American Civil War; Henry Ford wouldn't have produced a cost effective automobile; Toyota wouldn't be the insanely successful company they are today, of course, they standardised on a method of doing things, not a specific type of tool... Anyway, enough engineering bias, let me try and make a point :)
:) Like everything else in business, there is only one reason to do ANYTHING, you take an action because it yields an overall, objective benefit. Of course, I, personally, take the long view to "overall" and often recommend and sign off on short to mid term pain for long term gain.
Could a layman not ask the question of multiple programming languages being utilised as follows; why do you need to use thirteen different tools to solve the same problem thirteen different times? This is just as foolish... Note I am not talking about solving DIFFERENT problems...
Standardisation is NOT INTENDED as a straight jacket, however it does intend to ensure that faced with the same situation you use the same solution. It is about portability and interoperability, it is about ensuring that if you get hit by a bus an equally competent colleague can pick up where you left off with minimal learning curve. Naturally you should employ process improvement methods after each activity to fine tune the methods!! that goes without saying. Anyway the true Engineer only uses appropriate tools to solve a problem. Sometimes "appropriate" means the tool which is perhaps not the most ideal immediately, but creates the least ongoing burden (for maintenance, interoperability, etc...).
The descision to standardise should be made for one reason only, to IMPROVE your businesses products or processes. If you do not gain from standardising, do not standardise. Likewise, do not resist standardisation just because it is out of your comfort zone, because it makes YOUR life harder even as it yields overall benefits or because you PREFER tool a over tool b. It most certainly not be resisted because it makes your job less secure.
just my $0.02AUD
err!
jak.
There was a small burst of outages late last year, but other than the daily maintenance, its not usual that the account pages are down.
They have a downtime every day from 1100 to 1200 UTC that sometimes runs long like yesterday (if they are deploying hardware upgrades or bugwrangling the cluster).
err!
jak.
Oh no! Somebody call him the WAAAAAHMBULANCE.
Speaking as another EVE player, there are niggles and annoyances, yes. But as CCP continue to take positive steps to resolve the issues Im going to agree with TFA.
err!
jak.
...welcome our new Superbug overlords!
:)
I, for one, Welcome them
Hmm... interesting point of view except that AFAIK top viticulturalists locally (Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; you know, where the best red wines in the world are made ;) can identify from tasting the general region of the vinyard which grew the fruit; and such tastings are ALWAYS carried out as "pepsi challenges". Of course, these are guys which taste wine during the fermenting process; which takes a cast iron stomach... so they may not be average people...
:)
;) well, wine and ale's to be accurate; a tallk frosty glass of Coopers Pale Ale sits very well next to a fine glass of Hill of Grace... Course, I always knew Australia was the side of the fence on which the grass is greener /parochial :)
Either way, whilst it IS possible to produce mature, full bodied wine in an accelerated timeframe; it is NOT possible IMHO to age a wine to a drinkable state automagically; not without actually adding chemicals... we DONT do that to our wines (well, small ammounts of preservative are permitted, but all additives must be clearly noted on the bottle), except for casks; but goon isnt really wine.
Now, the Adelaide University (IIRC) has developed techniques to allow full bodied Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon to peak in 3~5 years; whilst they are inferior to wines made in the usual way which peak in 7~10 years, they are still drinkable. Mostly it comes down to the fruit, if you are using fruit from a 140 year old Shiraz vine (wood is perhaps a more accurate term for grapes like this), there is nothing other than slow aging that will mellow the wine without nasty side effects... oh! wait, those fools in Europe kept fighting wars over their best vinyards, so they dont have any vines that old, how would they know??...
Either way, Red wines still need to age in oak to develop their character, or you end up with pale, light swill without body, may as well drink white wine. So, when bottled they will be 2~3 years old anyway; but still, I would take alot of convincing that you could add another 2 years to it with any kind of machine that doesn't involve treating or diluting it with chemicals.
I suppose you could just filter out the solids and make it smoother... wouldnt help the character though. Besides, thats what decanters are for...
Oh yeah, here in Oz, wine and beer have the same social status
Just my $0.02
err!
jak.
Oh dear; what an alarmist post.
Yes, granted, RFID does have some privacy implications when applied in P.O.S. applications, hospitals and such like.
However, AFAIK, by far and above the largest use is in automotive security, logistics and workflow handling. Boxes dont care if people know whats in them, but it sure as shit makes the warehouse easier to manage if your robot/forklift knows what is in those boxes and automagically tracks stock in and out. Even walmart would still use RFID even if they weren't allowed to use it on stock in shop, because the would still use it for shipment and bulk stock management.
Most of the increased use of RFID will still remain back office, in factories, warehouses and other transit points. Put your tinfoil hats away.
*IF* the article discussed governments planning to RFID tag humans behind the left ear, then, perhaps, we would have a major issue.
However, the small number of privacy impacting cases aside, RFID is an incredibly flexible technology. In factory workflow planning, it allows us to remove human error from data logging. The workstation AUTOMATICALLY presents you with the correct fittings for component G because it knows you are assembling component G and not component W. Barcodes dont even come close.
The inventory management system knows what stock levels you have in the Finished Goods Inventory (FGI) because it has scanned the RFID bearing kanban's as the goods were loaded into the FGI racks.
Even if EVERY SINGLE application which impacted privacy was disallowed and canned; RFID use would still exponentially increase as people replace laser based barcode systems with RFID because it is more reliable (in a maintenance sense), easier and ultimately cheaper. Furthermore, it allows for far more efficient automated handling systems to be designed because you no longer have the limitation that every box needs to be in a direct line of sight for the scanner.
So, perhaps, just perhaps, the increased use of RFID *MIGHT* be in aid of improving the efficiency of the manufacturing and logistics industry and *NOT* to track where you take your pr0n. Considering how much whining about offshoring goes on here, you would think productivity technologies might get a better hearing.
Ah well. Just my Engineers $0.02 AUD
err!
jak.
I contend that the upgrade treadmill with users who accept getting shit upon by their suppliers and smile is a dead end path.
Most other Industries start in this state (You can have any colour as long as its black), but once something becomes enough of a commodity, inevetably the voice of the customer starts to win out.
Either they sue you into the stoneage for destroying their billion dollar enterprise with your crap thats not fit for purpose or they begin to understand that defects COST them and purchase from the folks without them.
Two hundred and fifty years ago, no-one cared if seventeen workers got shredded a day in the cotton `gin, so ole' Eli didnt bother with safety features and, if he had, probably wouldnt have been successful. I imagine even 100 years ago you bought the cheap machine before the one that had extra features to avoid grinding workers into your dogfood (cheap raw materials!). Now days, a manufacturer can demand a massive premium by being significantly and demonstrably safer than the competitor...
Whilst Human-At-Risk tends to be a bigger motivator than money on an individual scale, I guarantee corporations consider Caiptal-At-Risk a much more critical issue; therefore, once they realise that bugs cost them more than paying for well developed software, they will begin to demand it.
*THATS* Economics IMHO.
err!
jak
...
:)
/rant :)
of course, how fscking obvious??!?? We game mostly in "HD" anyway unless we play on consoles or handhelds. Hell, I am playing nethack in 1280x1024 as we speak
How many pc gamers with a half decent rig play at 720x576 (or local equivalent??), which is the maximum resolution of PAL... no, we play at 1280x1024 on our LCD monitors or 1600x1200 on our massive CRTs with SLI 7800GTX's. It is inevetable that console games will want to improve resolution to match those capable on PC games; they would rather you bought an XBOX 360 and 6 games than SLI 7800GTX!!
Why are we even having this discussion?? even in Australia entry level 1280x1024 27" HD LCD TV's are now below $1000.00 (AUD); most nations will switch of analogue transmissions in the not to distant future...
Ah well, clearly a slow slashdot news day
err!
jak
Forgetting the rest of the clearly self serving advertisment (nice work editors!), I want to focus on 160 GB...
"It has more disk space on it's two (yes two) hard drives than any laptop and almost any desktop."
What the fuck is this guy on?? I havent seen a desktop with that little hard drive space in over 4 years. Sure, my personal boxes are fairly high end and Ive had over a terabyte for a while now. However, even the old HP corporate shitbox on my desk has 200GB.
Not to mention calling something with a 2+ year old GPU a "gaming machine"; *IF* it had a 7800 in it, I might be willing to entertain the notion...
FFS, my laptop (a 2 year old centrino) has 120GB in just one drive...
I have no problem with a good review, but hyperbole and overselling like this is ridiculous. We need to do a better job of filtering this crap out!!
ok, Ill go off and calm down now...
err!
jak.
Ok, the christian right backbenchers and the "family first" (a front for a local charismatic christian cult) senators support this.
:)
:)
However there is ALREADY legislation in place where it was decided quite equivocally NOT to filter the net (when the minister responsible was actually a fairly psychotic christian too) for such nastiness and focus of a code of practice for local ISPs and Web hosts for managing tricks like domain hijacking and focus on education of parents on how to restric access to such material should they choose.
Once again, our Slashdot editors are the staunch bastion of reason, filtering the noise to present us with meaningless tripe
Singapore is Grandma the state, all others are pretenders
err!
jak.