"Marketeers are a bit thick and they can't sell a product unless it has loads of bells and whistles to point to. Unable to be honest they fiddle surveys to say the public want more complexity, to give them something to do."
Most people I've ever met want simplier devices, less thought required, but still able to do everything they want. In short they want a servant that you tell "Jeeves, do that". Complexity isn't sexy - just work well is sexy.
At least if you are outside the US, the Canon's are probably the best at printing on CD/DVDs. Not sure what the current models are, but I've been using mine for ages, no hassles. The major advantage of the Canon models was always that you could use refills, no hassle. My cartridges cost ~£1 a shot.
Unfortunately in the US, they blocked off the feed slot for the CD/DVD tray, because they didn't want to pay someone a fee.
This attempt by the US is situation normal. The UK have learnt over many years that they cannot be trusted in defence agreements, and that they will attempt to keep the technology, and more importantly money, as close to them as possible.
This isn't an issue where the UK is likely to back down. The maritime version of the JSF has *a lot* of British technology in it, probably more than 50% with the cockups they have had to fix. If they walk away and develop a strengthened eurofighter airframe all that knowledge will go with them.
JSF at heart is just the spiritual successor to the F16 - pump them out in large numbers and don't worry too much about the quality. However as the only game in town its being weighed down with more and more junk - reducing its effectiveness in the maritime role. Best probably for the UK to get out now and leave the US to the land based mess. However I expect the US will back down to keep the program running.
Although I can see how you might yearn for those 'challenges' you haven't seen, you are in a much better place that you would if you went backwards into base EE engineering. Of course that depends on just kind of SE you are doing. If its the paper chase kind then I would say move on to another employer. That's not real SE. Sure SE needs documentation, but the real value comes from the other end, the understanding of the connectivity, cohesion and architecture of a solution.
However wherever you are, you do need to understand that even 4 years isn't a long track record. Real systems engineers are controlling large scale projects, and directors tend to be risk averse, looking for a track record of experience. Either find a smaller, more constrained project that you can persuade them to let you lose on, or act as a 'bag carrier' for a SE on a larger project. Building your rep there can be a stepping stone to bigger things.
And finally, when you get those 'challenges', be aware that a hell of a lot of worry and hassle go with them. You may end up yearning for the simpler life.
I agree that terms should be shorter. However I would view it slightly differently. The time taken to move from patent to exploitation can be significant. With licensing, manufacture setup, distribution, etc. it can be quite slow. Conversely the time for music, book, and other media to reach the marketplace is shorter - and likely to get even shorter as online mechanisms predominate.
So I would suggest a 20 year term for patents, and a 15 year one for copyrights.
However, a major difference would be on the standard for 'obviousness' in patents, which needs to be tightened significantly. Much of the time the 'inventive step' is perfectly obvious to those in the subject domain, if the problem is presented correctly. I would suggest that the minimum standard should be 'surprise'. Anyone reading the patent, with knowledge of the domain, should be surprised and interested by the brillance of the inventive step. The aim would be to reduce the number of patents granted by an order of magnitude or two. Obviously software and business methods should continue to the excluded from patents.
Lots of talk of what Al Qaeda might do, but these are the people with their hands on thousands of nukes, much of the energy supplies and they are now poisoning people with radioactive isotopes because they say they are scheming murdering psychopaths.
Do we really need another bunch of homicidal f*ckwits in the world?
I was involved in the early stages of this. Even from the beginning it had screwup written all over it - so bad that many of those who looked and examined it walked away. Rather than define standards it defined a monolythic entity that was then broken into 6 blocks, given to separate contractors, and then they were told they had to fit together. Then they held a competition to force prices down, played even more tricks to force the price even further down, and gave it to the lowest price bidder. The few weeks around that time were nuts with people taking the most shiny, most optimistic assumptions to beat the competition. 20% off best and final tells its own story.
We haven't even got to the part yet where things really go wrong, they are further down the line. However we already have large firms doing anything to get out and taking large losses to do so.
It is a huge disaster in the making and should be canned as soon as possible. What will be delivered will be an embarassing mess in comparison to what anyone here would expect from a 21st century health system. I'm trying to make sure my data goes nowhere near it
So, lets get this straight. The local government pays for team stadia in the US? That's insane. In the UK not only is it private money, often the teams will have to bribe the local council with roads, housing etc. to be allowed to build in the first place.
Just to point up this recently announced project in Australia, using on Solar PV concentrators. 154MW and $500m makes it a sizeable programme with plans to extend even further.
"You're more likely to be killed by a car accident than terrorism"
Dying from medical failures by doctors/nurses has about the same probability. Even though it's a known fact, most people aren't aware of it to the same degree. That comes down to the way the media plays particular stories and what news reporting actually means.
Bird flu pandemic death risks are currently an order of magnitude higher than either,roughly speaking. But until its too late most will push the thought away since it doesn't connect with what they 'know' in their day to day lives. Global warming or peak oil are even worse. The impact/probability aspects make them more important to you personally. These are events that can break apart the foundations of society. Civilisation, what it is, and if it is, are changed and unlike one time events, these threats keep on giving over time, getting worse.
Rationality in needed in peoples' understanding, and in the reporting of news events. Terrorism outside of CRBNS is really an also ran; its not important enough to change how you behave (or at least it shouldn't be). Those that specialise in warping the public's perceptions (journalist, movie makers, politicians) need to give there attention to finding new ways to get the general populous to understand what really matters and what needs action - giving them a sense of perspective.
XHTML and CSS are horrible kludges, dreamed up by out of work computer scientists to try to impose their perceptions on the rest of the world. There is a reason HTML took off and SGML lay dying in a ditch somewhere, and it has to do with usability and understandability. Stop, look, learn, and realise that W3C is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Being useful comes first, everything else a distant second. Its about the real world, stupid.
Its a nonsensical statement. Which web developer is going to prioritise tabs or RSS over proper CSS support? Real world developers want to wring Microsoft's neck over the stupid games they have to play to get their browser to work properly. About the only thing that makes sense is they didn't want to put the effort it would take into fixing their buggy CSS implementation, since that wouldn't put any new wizzy bits on screen.
The aim here is to spec a version 3 of the browser, not a version 2.1. Whatever computer science types may think, people aren't interested in HOW its does something, they are only interested in WHAT it does; for them.
People go on about bloat, but better functionality need not lead to bloat if its done right. However the worst fault v3 of Firefox could have would be "mehhhh, its no different to v2 or IE7". Call it the Vista effect.
There is a fundamental need to think beyond the history of the web and move forward, towards something that is obviously better than the competition, or the status quo. Be that by default extensions, plugins or whatever - it doesn't matter.
Here's hoping that someone that doesn't have developer myopia is putting the spec together for v3 - normal users are the main focus people !
My thought on it was very simple, a folder in the bookmarks called 'startup'. Anything you put in there was opened in tabs when firefox was started up for the first time in the day.
5 mins effort I'll guess, if you have access to the guts of the thing.
However since there are many, many transparent GIFs out there its useful to try and improve the look of them. Particularly so since you already have the code for full alpha PNGs in there. Taking the existing jaggy transparent GIFs it is possible to recognise the edges of the 1 bit alpha mask and create smoother alpha values, extrapolating edge color values appropriately to arrive a smoother GIF image edges.
Yes its a hack, and I'll guess there are some smart algorithms out there to do it better than I describe, but it terms of making old webpage look better it should be achievable (I think) since its possible to merge the result into the PNG rendering.
Ideal would probably be to incorporate the animated GIF functionality into the PNG path and then focus on routines to convert GIF images on the fly to PNGs - doing what is possible on the fly to improve the quality and ending up with only one rendering path.
What I had in mind was slightly different. When you first turned it on after a defined period it would open all the tabs you normally check. However you would still have only one homepage, and if you clicked on the home button you would only get that page, not the whole set. I don't think it already does that, does it?
I use my homepage as a navigator, so I don't want 10 pages opening every time I click on it.
There's something that has to be said at the start of every discussion about "The end of Oil."
"We lived for thousands of years before Oil, and we'll live for thousands of years after oil; just not quite the same."
Or as many of us. At the beginning of the the age of oil there were what, about 1 billion? Are you happy with the idea that's how many might be left after the age of oil?
Tried it a few months back, didn't like it, turned it off again.
Sure there are problems with the existing system, opening of low ranked replies in-page would be good, as would a better moderation system. However the current suggested replacement isn't really an improvement, the focus is on the wrong place and the approach should be scrapped.
Hackers are supposed to hammer a HIPAA data to hold medical authorities to ransom - which of course in the scenario they 'beat off'. Yay for the good guys.
In reality of course they'd slip in, copy the details of anyone with a particularly embarassing illness, then blackmail THEM to stop release of the data. In reality the government probably wouldn't have a clue.
If this is indicative of the general standard of 'Cyber Storm' they need more help in understanding the threat before they work on their communication skills.
Paying of the artists might seem like a prudent course of action, but once you pay of one group, what about the next?
I'd have less problem with them paying the artists directly, rather than the industry which includes all the other hangers on and parasites. I somehow doubt any of this money actually goes to the artists at all - it just inflates the profit lines of the various companies.
Even for large houses, the 3-4kW is overkill. From answers it seems very much as if its typical to overspecify lighting in US houses massively. A bedroom with 130W of light? Just what games have to be played to dim down that level of illumination for a bedroom?
Like Mr Anonymous, I have roughly one light fitting per room, some 100W (CF 21W) where needed and if I walked into somewhere that had 60+ light fittings I'd be looking to replace them if for no other purpose than to keep my sanity with replacements.
Sometimes its difficult to understand just how the US can burn through so much oil, power, CO2 etc. Then you see the Hummer and hear of McMansions that double as lighthouses and you realise just how profligate some countries can be.
So, to get this right, you have nearly 4kW of lighing in your house?
While I applaud your switching to CF, it might be an idea to look at the vast number of light fittings you have and trim the number somewhat. As it stands you could probably give a lighthouse a run for its money.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd try a different translation.
"Marketeers are a bit thick and they can't sell a product unless it has loads of bells and whistles to point to. Unable to be honest they fiddle surveys to say the public want more complexity, to give them something to do."
Most people I've ever met want simplier devices, less thought required, but still able to do everything they want. In short they want a servant that you tell "Jeeves, do that". Complexity isn't sexy - just work well is sexy.
Canon ip3000
At least if you are outside the US, the Canon's are probably the best at printing on CD/DVDs. Not sure what the current models are, but I've been using mine for ages, no hassles. The major advantage of the Canon models was always that you could use refills, no hassle. My cartridges cost ~£1 a shot.
Unfortunately in the US, they blocked off the feed slot for the CD/DVD tray, because they didn't want to pay someone a fee.
This attempt by the US is situation normal. The UK have learnt over many years that they cannot be trusted in defence agreements, and that they will attempt to keep the technology, and more importantly money, as close to them as possible.
This isn't an issue where the UK is likely to back down. The maritime version of the JSF has *a lot* of British technology in it, probably more than 50% with the cockups they have had to fix. If they walk away and develop a strengthened eurofighter airframe all that knowledge will go with them.
JSF at heart is just the spiritual successor to the F16 - pump them out in large numbers and don't worry too much about the quality. However as the only game in town its being weighed down with more and more junk - reducing its effectiveness in the maritime role. Best probably for the UK to get out now and leave the US to the land based mess. However I expect the US will back down to keep the program running.
Although I can see how you might yearn for those 'challenges' you haven't seen, you are in a much better place that you would if you went backwards into base EE engineering. Of course that depends on just kind of SE you are doing. If its the paper chase kind then I would say move on to another employer. That's not real SE. Sure SE needs documentation, but the real value comes from the other end, the understanding of the connectivity, cohesion and architecture of a solution.
However wherever you are, you do need to understand that even 4 years isn't a long track record. Real systems engineers are controlling large scale projects, and directors tend to be risk averse, looking for a track record of experience. Either find a smaller, more constrained project that you can persuade them to let you lose on, or act as a 'bag carrier' for a SE on a larger project. Building your rep there can be a stepping stone to bigger things.
And finally, when you get those 'challenges', be aware that a hell of a lot of worry and hassle go with them. You may end up yearning for the simpler life.
I agree that terms should be shorter. However I would view it slightly differently. The time taken to move from patent to exploitation can be significant. With licensing, manufacture setup, distribution, etc. it can be quite slow. Conversely the time for music, book, and other media to reach the marketplace is shorter - and likely to get even shorter as online mechanisms predominate.
So I would suggest a 20 year term for patents, and a 15 year one for copyrights.
However, a major difference would be on the standard for 'obviousness' in patents, which needs to be tightened significantly. Much of the time the 'inventive step' is perfectly obvious to those in the subject domain, if the problem is presented correctly. I would suggest that the minimum standard should be 'surprise'. Anyone reading the patent, with knowledge of the domain, should be surprised and interested by the brillance of the inventive step. The aim would be to reduce the number of patents granted by an order of magnitude or two. Obviously software and business methods should continue to the excluded from patents.
Hands up who's not worried by this?
Lots of talk of what Al Qaeda might do, but these are the people with their hands on thousands of nukes, much of the energy supplies and they are now poisoning people with radioactive isotopes because they say they are scheming murdering psychopaths.
Do we really need another bunch of homicidal f*ckwits in the world?
I was involved in the early stages of this. Even from the beginning it had screwup written all over it - so bad that many of those who looked and examined it walked away. Rather than define standards it defined a monolythic entity that was then broken into 6 blocks, given to separate contractors, and then they were told they had to fit together. Then they held a competition to force prices down, played even more tricks to force the price even further down, and gave it to the lowest price bidder. The few weeks around that time were nuts with people taking the most shiny, most optimistic assumptions to beat the competition. 20% off best and final tells its own story.
We haven't even got to the part yet where things really go wrong, they are further down the line. However we already have large firms doing anything to get out and taking large losses to do so.
It is a huge disaster in the making and should be canned as soon as possible. What will be delivered will be an embarassing mess in comparison to what anyone here would expect from a 21st century health system. I'm trying to make sure my data goes nowhere near it
So, lets get this straight. The local government pays for team stadia in the US? That's insane. In the UK not only is it private money, often the teams will have to bribe the local council with roads, housing etc. to be allowed to build in the first place.
Sounds like someone is missing a trick
Just to point up this recently announced project in Australia, using on Solar PV concentrators. 154MW and $500m makes it a sizeable programme with plans to extend even further.
"You're more likely to be killed by a car accident than terrorism"
Dying from medical failures by doctors/nurses has about the same probability. Even though it's a known fact, most people aren't aware of it to the same degree. That comes down to the way the media plays particular stories and what news reporting actually means.
Bird flu pandemic death risks are currently an order of magnitude higher than either,roughly speaking. But until its too late most will push the thought away since it doesn't connect with what they 'know' in their day to day lives. Global warming or peak oil are even worse. The impact/probability aspects make them more important to you personally. These are events that can break apart the foundations of society. Civilisation, what it is, and if it is, are changed and unlike one time events, these threats keep on giving over time, getting worse.
Rationality in needed in peoples' understanding, and in the reporting of news events. Terrorism outside of CRBNS is really an also ran; its not important enough to change how you behave (or at least it shouldn't be). Those that specialise in warping the public's perceptions (journalist, movie makers, politicians) need to give there attention to finding new ways to get the general populous to understand what really matters and what needs action - giving them a sense of perspective.
XHTML and CSS are horrible kludges, dreamed up by out of work computer scientists to try to impose their perceptions on the rest of the world. There is a reason HTML took off and SGML lay dying in a ditch somewhere, and it has to do with usability and understandability. Stop, look, learn, and realise that W3C is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Being useful comes first, everything else a distant second. Its about the real world, stupid.
Its a nonsensical statement. Which web developer is going to prioritise tabs or RSS over proper CSS support? Real world developers want to wring Microsoft's neck over the stupid games they have to play to get their browser to work properly. About the only thing that makes sense is they didn't want to put the effort it would take into fixing their buggy CSS implementation, since that wouldn't put any new wizzy bits on screen.
Exactly. If I had mod points I'd mod you up.
The aim here is to spec a version 3 of the browser, not a version 2.1. Whatever computer science types may think, people aren't interested in HOW its does something, they are only interested in WHAT it does; for them.
People go on about bloat, but better functionality need not lead to bloat if its done right. However the worst fault v3 of Firefox could have would be "mehhhh, its no different to v2 or IE7". Call it the Vista effect.
There is a fundamental need to think beyond the history of the web and move forward, towards something that is obviously better than the competition, or the status quo. Be that by default extensions, plugins or whatever - it doesn't matter.
Here's hoping that someone that doesn't have developer myopia is putting the spec together for v3 - normal users are the main focus people !
My thought on it was very simple, a folder in the bookmarks called 'startup'. Anything you put in there was opened in tabs when firefox was started up for the first time in the day.
5 mins effort I'll guess, if you have access to the guts of the thing.
I know that.
However since there are many, many transparent GIFs out there its useful to try and improve the look of them. Particularly so since you already have the code for full alpha PNGs in there. Taking the existing jaggy transparent GIFs it is possible to recognise the edges of the 1 bit alpha mask and create smoother alpha values, extrapolating edge color values appropriately to arrive a smoother GIF image edges.
Yes its a hack, and I'll guess there are some smart algorithms out there to do it better than I describe, but it terms of making old webpage look better it should be achievable (I think) since its possible to merge the result into the PNG rendering.
Ideal would probably be to incorporate the animated GIF functionality into the PNG path and then focus on routines to convert GIF images on the fly to PNGs - doing what is possible on the fly to improve the quality and ending up with only one rendering path.
What I had in mind was slightly different. When you first turned it on after a defined period it would open all the tabs you normally check. However you would still have only one homepage, and if you clicked on the home button you would only get that page, not the whole set. I don't think it already does that, does it?
I use my homepage as a navigator, so I don't want 10 pages opening every time I click on it.
Or as many of us. At the beginning of the the age of oil there were what, about 1 billion? Are you happy with the idea that's how many might be left after the age of oil?
Not enough to make much difference on the broad scale, although the Canadians might be helped a little.
Former Soviet Union = Russia (usually)
Sure there are problems with the existing system, opening of low ranked replies in-page would be good, as would a better moderation system. However the current suggested replacement isn't really an improvement, the focus is on the wrong place and the approach should be scrapped.
Hackers are supposed to hammer a HIPAA data to hold medical authorities to ransom - which of course in the scenario they 'beat off'. Yay for the good guys.
In reality of course they'd slip in, copy the details of anyone with a particularly embarassing illness, then blackmail THEM to stop release of the data. In reality the government probably wouldn't have a clue.
If this is indicative of the general standard of 'Cyber Storm' they need more help in understanding the threat before they work on their communication skills.
Like Mr Anonymous, I have roughly one light fitting per room, some 100W (CF 21W) where needed and if I walked into somewhere that had 60+ light fittings I'd be looking to replace them if for no other purpose than to keep my sanity with replacements.
Sometimes its difficult to understand just how the US can burn through so much oil, power, CO2 etc. Then you see the Hummer and hear of McMansions that double as lighthouses and you realise just how profligate some countries can be.
While I applaud your switching to CF, it might be an idea to look at the vast number of light fittings you have and trim the number somewhat. As it stands you could probably give a lighthouse a run for its money.