Actually, God chose several people to be his ambassadors, 5 to be precise. I am referring to the authors of the works of the New Testament, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (or rather the people who wrote down what they said approx 30 years later), and Paul. Because the ambassador is the person who actually tells everyone else what you said. This was NOT Jesus. Jesus didn't write a single word of the Bible. Kind of strange when you think about it, hmmm?
Oh they have some very clever dogma to take care of this one. In order to give some absoluteness to their biblical canon they decided to close that loophole by claiming that those who wrote the books (which were neither Jesus, nor the apostles) were filled/guided/possessed with the holy spirit which made them infallible. I would think such an action would earn them fame in the bible, but apparently it did not.
Additionally many english religions were not founded by scholars who understood Aramaic and ancient Greek, so they depended on the King James Version (translation) of the Bible and therefore add to their Dogma that the translators to english were also guided by the holy spirit and therefore infallible.
With all this infallability going on, pay no attention to the fact that the lords prayer appearing almost identically twice in the bible should provide some evidence of fallibility somewhere along the line (see KJV Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:1-13).
Ignoring the fact that you have no units and too many significant figures (now I know why the engineering curriculum rides us so hard on labeling and s.f.'s), it looks like you calculated the height of a screen with a 65" diagonal but after that I'm lost. Is there something in there I'm missing, or are you flexing your basic algebra muscles?
I have seen these things... long ago... I was in elementary school at the time. And they worked just like you said. They required some large diffuse reflecting surface. In elementary school they were used so the teacher didn't have to walk around with some library book showing all the kids the picture, she could just use that thing. Been forever since I've thought about that old clunker (it looked WWII vintage even back then).
I'm pretty sure the design wouldn't work, even with a reflective LCD like in handhelds (or the Gameboys). Well it might work a little with one light source and the LCD screen aimed to reflect the light from this one source to the mirror. Then the light moves the correct direction, but you no longer have a flat surface to focus so the projected image would always be out of focus except for one line.
But this hypothesis is moot, the plans specifically state he's using a standard LCD video screen, so he's probably more good talk than good design.
Yeah, some of them too simple maybe. Like those plans that were scanned (about half way down the page)... If I'm reading those plans right, he has two 75-100 watt incandescent light bulbs in the box, but not behind the LCD projector - they are in front and to either side. I'm really confused how that is supposed to work. I've seen this sort of thing before from inexperienced people making those upside-down TV & Fresnel setups who think "If I have more light in the box, the image will be brighter" (yeah it will, but so will turning on the lights in the room - and it's obvious why you don't want that).
Anyone got a clue on this? It looks to me like those incandescent bulbs would destroy the image. At the very least the light coming from those bulbs would have to make two trips through each LCD, so the color density would be off. Not to mention the fact that those light bulbs being off to the side would not tend to radiate light that the LCD monitor would direct out of the box. Looks like someone put a lot of work into the design, but it's wrong.
Okay, let's consider I completely missed that the SCUD is a ballistic missile. I thought it wasn't because I thought SCUD stood for Subsonic Cruise Unarmed Decoy. Which apparently there is such an acronym, but it doesn't seem to represent these missiles. I concede that point.
So we're back to the SCUD being a ballistic missile. So if the missile is ballistic, following a ballistic trajectory, why was it wobbling in flight? The bulk of the missile, sans debris, should have been in a ballistic trajectory. The scud has controllable fins, so it does have some measure of cruise guidance, I would think if the missile were coming apart in flight, the control surfaces would be among the first to go, and then the missile would again be in a purely ballistic trajectory. Why was it wobbling? If it started tumbling end over end, I wouldn't expect it to survive more than 100 miles. Whatever destabilization occurred needed to start while the missile still had thrust, or the control surfaces were still intact.
Your first link is a translation of a patriotic Israeli article cheerleading the competence of their military. It doesn't necessarily make what they're saying false, but does make it suspect.
The second link is way low on content, I'm not sure how to judge it. All it says is "we looked at a bunch of videotapes and arrived at this conclusion". And then goes on to mention the bitter dispute between the U.S. and Israeli military over why the system didn't work so well in Israel.
I'm not sure I'm going to buy either argument. I know enough about flight characteristics to question the assertion that the scuds were so good at jinking and chaff the patriots (which were originally designed to hit jinking, chaff releasing aircraft) couldn't hit them.
If the scuds were dropping debris because extra fuel tanks made them unstable:
1) Why wasn't the wobble a pronounced problem at launch when the extra weight would have completely thrown off the trim characteristics of the missile?
2) Dropping "debris" is a bad thing, and it's only a matter of time before doing so results in an uncorrectable failure of the missiles flight aerodynamics. Why weren't most of them failing earlier?
3) Missiles don't fly in smooth trajectories nearly as often as you think. They jink to try and make anti missile systems (like say the Phalanx close-in weapons system) miss them or think they are dead and not worth any more attention.
Even if the patriots did fail, why would that have grave implications for our anti ballistic missile shield? SCUDs are cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles. Why do you think those big computers at Norad can accurately predict where the warheads will hit just after boost?
I'm not talking from a completely baseless pedestal here. I've written a Linux device driver, and am well aware of how loadable modules work. I am also well aware that everybody who tries or has tried distributing a binary module has had trouble. In fact to the best of my knowledge, nobody has built my driver from source (separately from the kernel source) as a module that could be loaded into the mdksecure kernel - so no binary would work for that anyway (and if you're using mandrake, there is a high probability you'll end up using that kernel).
How many binary module configurations would I have to make available to catch a reasonable swath of Linux users? How much would it cost me in support everytime someone says "Hey, when I add your module it says I might taint the kernel"?
What reasons do they have for not releasing specs? Well, in the case of my driver, the manufacturer (a fairly small player in the imaging industry) had come up with a clever way of doing color images at 8 bits per pixel with more color information than any other 8 bit per pixel color scheme. This means their camera can send either more fps than a similar quality camera, or more quality than another 8 bpp camera.
There are a lot of small players who have come up with something clever and would rather keep it as intellectual property than patent it for the world to see. The majority of users don't care if its open source or proprietary, they just want it to work.
That's a fundamental problem with monolithic kernels. Linux will continue to be rejected by the unwashed masses when adding new hardware means compiling a new kernel.
The "release often, release early" mantra is no longer used with kernel development. If your company released "Cool Hardware Thing" on March 1 and sent open source drivers for it to the community the same day, Joe Average would still not be able to use your hardware because 2.4.18 was released before then and 2.4.19 still isn't out (I don't see Joe Average being comfortable patching and recompiling his kernel). The situation is actually worse than that since Joe Average would probably have to wait for Red Hat to offer up that kernel revision it could easily take forever (or maybe the 2.4.18 kernel is available for users of 5.0 ?)
I have to admit, it's pretty slick the way windows comes up and says "Hey, I see you added some new hardware, why don't you stick in the CD the manufacturer gave you and I'll make it work".
Even with a standard Tivo, you can watch one program while recording another. There is an advantage over a normal VCR.
You can also watch 15 minutes of a show and then think "Hey, this is good I should record it", and Tivo will record it, including the 15 minutes you've already watched. That doesn't sound like such a great feature at first, but I can't tell you how many times I've got sucked into a program and my wife says "Hey, we gotta go do X". No problem, I just hit the record button and I can watch the show again from the beginning when our social calendar is taken care of.
The Tivo unit is being sold to you AT A LOSS. Tivo gives kickbacks to Quantum (the hard drive manufacturer) and Philips/Sony (the unit manufacturer) to sell Tivo's at a cost which will appeal to a customer. They recover this loss through the subscription. For $250 you can pay off the loss and get free programming for the life of that unit. The $250 does not transfer to another unit because that unit has also been subsidized.
I was in a similar boat, but decided I really wanted a DirecTivo (Records two shows at once off the satellite dish). After using Tivo for 6 months, I don't begrudge them their $10 anymore. The service is worth at least that for the convenience of watching what I want, when I want and skipping through the commercials and fluff. For example, I watch Jeopardy in about 15 minutes.
And last, but not least... It's hard to hack your VCR to give you a bash prompt. That has always been an appealing thing to me about Tivo. I love playing with hardware (I know I'm in minority, but still...)
"Lewd or lascivious purpose" sounds to be narrowly targeted enough.
A little off topic, but... I think the bill is still too broadly targeted.
What, somebody was secretly videotaped during an intimate moment in Louisianna and Louisianna had no law against it? Well, shame on Louisianna! Why does the FEDERAL government need to get in on this action? Was the video shot by someone in neighboring texas? Was she living on a military base? An indian reservation? Seems to me this sort of policing belongs squarely in the hands of the state. As much as I hate the "Let's form a militia and oppose the gub'mint" types, I think they should use this one as an indication of the government trying to nudge its way into more people's lives. No doubt the federal lawmakers will try and spin this as some sort of "civil rights" extension BS.
IANAL: There are some circumstances under which the law grants you "reasonable expectation" of privacy. For example, your employer absolutely may not tap in any way a bathroom or changing room (say if your workplace had a gym).
Of course the bathroom is the easy one. Things start going down hill from there. The courts have general held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the telephone, and employers are usually barred from recording calls to/from an external source. Hypothetical example: An employee waiting to hear the results of a VD test from their doctor will probably want the doctor to call them as soon as the results are in, but won't want it to be management's hot gossip of the week. The employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy when their doctor calls them on the phone whether it is at work or home.
When you get to email, the courts don't generally find personal issues which need prompt notification are transmitted via email. So the conditions under which you would need an expectation of privacy are far fewer, so monitoring internet crap is usually acceptable.
Spread spectrum is no magic bullet, but there is something that you can do with it that you can't with the non-spread spectrum system. You can run it over the top of narrow band transmissions. So you could have a spectrum divided into 100 parts for 100 people, then run another 100 spread spectrum over that. It increases the noise floor of the narrow band transceivers, but generally not enough to be an issue. Now you have 200 people using the spectrum that only 100 people could before (there are other benefits, such as fitting more people on the same spectrum than dedicated narrow band frequencies could support).
Spread spectrum is also resistant to multipath problems. So if you are in an area with mountains or metal buildings you shouldn't have multipath signal problems.
Well, for starters Salt Lake County in Utah is ranked #31 on the American Lung Associations 2001 State of the Air worst counties. San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Cruz had no measured unhealthy ozone levels in that year. Why would they? The on shore breeze blows it all towards the inland valley.
You missed the bay area weather. Seasonally it is very mild.
In your "skilled workforce" section you forgot that Stanford and Berkeley are two of the top 5 engineering schools in the country according to U.S. News & World Report.
A "few" more workers available? You haven't been out here in a while have you? You have no idea how much talent is lying around out there unable to get a job anywhere (the market *really* sucks right now). There are thousands of talented (and tens of thousands of wannabe talented) people desperate for work here. People with Masters Degrees and experience behind them are taking 60K/yr jobs, if they're lucky enough to find them.
And as someone else mentioned, companies in the bay area like to do business with companies in the bay area. Why? They have this obsession with driving and meeting face to face I suppose. I've always been bitter about this fact. I've experienced it first hand a number of times. If they don't think they can get on the phone and arrange a meeting (and they love meetings, maybe that's why the dot coms failed, too many meetings about "what are we going to do?" and not enough doing) they don't want to do business with you.
I love Utah, and if there were jobs there, I'd move there. I like big houses in low density housing communities. But it's not for everyone, and there is no Sand Hill Road. Your Rackspace argument doesn't really hold. It's a hosting company. They're providing a service completely different from what Lineo is trying to do. Heck, Lineo was based in utah but they had a bay area office because they knew if you want bay area companies to buy your product/service, you need to be in the bay area.
Unless you are truly a power user, you do not have bandwidth to share. Your ISP probably sells you service, not bandwidth. That's why you can't call up your provider and say "Hey, when I download pr0n at 8PM my download is really slow, where's all that bandwidth I bought?". That's also why service providers are not happy about people setting up neighborhood 802.11 networks with only one person paying them for service (hey, you're just sharing your bandwidth, right?). No internet service ever gives you a gaurantee of throughput. In fact, every service provider over sells their bandwidth because most of your online time is spent reading not receiving (or sending).
You don't own the bandwidth, your provider does. If Brilliant is using that bandwidth, and is not providing the user with anything and is detrimental to the service of other people using that service provider, what you have is misappropriated bandwidth. With any luck AT&T will show up at Brilliant's office asking them to pay for it.
What Brilliant is doing is trying to make money by carving it out of the margins of the providers who would normally charge advertisers for hosting. The same amount of load is on the network, but the people carrying the load will get less income for it (and none of those companies have fat margins anymore).
Re:Valgrind and memory leaks
on
KDE 3.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2
Wow! Not that I don't believe you but my impression of C++ was that memory issues were worse because the compiler makes it easy to get a bitwise copy of an object and the first destructor that runs could leave dangling pointers in every other copy. Thus requiring consistent use of copy constructors, if only to print a message saying "you didn't really mean to copy me, did you?".
You've always had to pair allocate/free constructs in C and C++. The syntax being different shouldn't make them less likely to occur. Whether I allocate a bit map using new char[10000] or malloc(10000), doesn't make much difference.
If you're really that concerned you could leave off the &0xFF. As long as you aren't doing division or comparison it will be fine.
In RGB/BGR space you usually promote the individual elements to a wider type before working on them anyway. For example, if you're brightening an image, you can't keep the data in a byte because the byte will roll over if you overexpose the element.
What are you doing that is going to require you to double your storage requirements for your bitmap? Not having an unsigned datatype shouldn't do that.
And back in the day bumming your code to use less system resources was a requirement. I love these days, I don't want to go back. Several projects I have worked on would have shipped months earlier if we weren't so concerned with figuring out how to make it fit in 640K or 4MB or run on a 386sx33.
for simple things like, oh, I dunno.. ip addresses, or anything with a database, etc..
Why would IP addresses be a problem if stored in a signed 32 bit integer instead of unsigned? All you are really using the int for is a place to store bits. What would a database be doing that would make this a problem? (Java is a well established technology for enterprise, it's rare to see Java not used with a Database)
Because Java doesn't have signed data types (except char) doesn't mean you can't store a 32 bit unsigned value in a 32 bit signed integer.
DTV's agreements say that if you can get them with an antenna, you may not have them on your DTV.
You're only a couple months behind the times. That's not too bad I suppose. You might want to update your information because you're not knowledgable about recent changes in legislation by the government that affected service for DirectTV.
If Blizzard phased out a product, then bnetd.org would fall under the DMCA's protection against obsolesence. That would be something we would be looking for because then when Blizzard brought suit against bnetd.org, the people responsible for bnetd could ask EFF to write up the legal documents to ask the judge to throw out the case on those grounds.
Ignoring your apologetic about the web page being old...
Interesting, so they got a 144,000% increase in speed? Was this distributed over 1500 computers? You don't get that kind of speed up going from one computer to 10 or 20.
Sorry but that sounds too good to be true. You aren't astroturfing are you?
As for the Web Services aspect... You aren't seriously arguing that PRESENTATION allowed them to significantly reduce their development time, are you? They had to cluster their algorithm to get a 1440x speed improvement and it was all worth it because web services made it easy to view? Huh?
This is a complex problem and I think a lot of the answers I'm reading on this topic center around a misconception on a lot of people's part about the difference in luminance perception and chrominance perception. The key issue is:
The eye is most sensitive to luminance changes in GREEN.
The eye is most sensitive to chrominance changes in BLUE.
Thus if you are trying to determine at what point the eye will say "hey there is a block of a different color on top of that one", blue is going to be an important part of your color model since while your eye isn't so good at picking up how bright a blue is, it is very sensitive to the relative shade around the blue wavelength something is.
So if you are trying to do a 3-space transform and distance and finding that colors which are linearly close to each other in CIELAB space are perceptually very different, it is very likely because it is a color in a space where the human eye is more perceptually sensitive. You are going to get "dead areas" of the model where the eye is not so good at viewing differences, and active areas where in a small space there seem to be quite a few different colors because the eye is perceptually sensitive in that area.
This is the reason you see odd patterns in color changes in a rainbow. You are seeing the relative sensitivities of your eye to pick up colors. Color perception is decidely non-linear and doesn't even fit a nice equation.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh they have some very clever dogma to take care of this one. In order to give some absoluteness to their biblical canon they decided to close that loophole by claiming that those who wrote the books (which were neither Jesus, nor the apostles) were filled/guided/possessed with the holy spirit which made them infallible. I would think such an action would earn them fame in the bible, but apparently it did not.
Additionally many english religions were not founded by scholars who understood Aramaic and ancient Greek, so they depended on the King James Version (translation) of the Bible and therefore add to their Dogma that the translators to english were also guided by the holy spirit and therefore infallible.
With all this infallability going on, pay no attention to the fact that the lords prayer appearing almost identically twice in the bible should provide some evidence of fallibility somewhere along the line (see KJV Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:1-13).
Ummm, what did you just answer?
Ignoring the fact that you have no units and too many significant figures (now I know why the engineering curriculum rides us so hard on labeling and s.f.'s), it looks like you calculated the height of a screen with a 65" diagonal but after that I'm lost. Is there something in there I'm missing, or are you flexing your basic algebra muscles?
I have seen these things... long ago... I was in elementary school at the time. And they worked just like you said. They required some large diffuse reflecting surface. In elementary school they were used so the teacher didn't have to walk around with some library book showing all the kids the picture, she could just use that thing. Been forever since I've thought about that old clunker (it looked WWII vintage even back then).
I'm pretty sure the design wouldn't work, even with a reflective LCD like in handhelds (or the Gameboys). Well it might work a little with one light source and the LCD screen aimed to reflect the light from this one source to the mirror. Then the light moves the correct direction, but you no longer have a flat surface to focus so the projected image would always be out of focus except for one line.
But this hypothesis is moot, the plans specifically state he's using a standard LCD video screen, so he's probably more good talk than good design.
Yeah, some of them too simple maybe. Like those plans that were scanned (about half way down the page)... If I'm reading those plans right, he has two 75-100 watt incandescent light bulbs in the box, but not behind the LCD projector - they are in front and to either side. I'm really confused how that is supposed to work. I've seen this sort of thing before from inexperienced people making those upside-down TV & Fresnel setups who think "If I have more light in the box, the image will be brighter" (yeah it will, but so will turning on the lights in the room - and it's obvious why you don't want that).
Anyone got a clue on this? It looks to me like those incandescent bulbs would destroy the image. At the very least the light coming from those bulbs would have to make two trips through each LCD, so the color density would be off. Not to mention the fact that those light bulbs being off to the side would not tend to radiate light that the LCD monitor would direct out of the box. Looks like someone put a lot of work into the design, but it's wrong.
Okay, let's consider I completely missed that the SCUD is a ballistic missile. I thought it wasn't because I thought SCUD stood for Subsonic Cruise Unarmed Decoy. Which apparently there is such an acronym, but it doesn't seem to represent these missiles. I concede that point.
So we're back to the SCUD being a ballistic missile. So if the missile is ballistic, following a ballistic trajectory, why was it wobbling in flight? The bulk of the missile, sans debris, should have been in a ballistic trajectory. The scud has controllable fins, so it does have some measure of cruise guidance, I would think if the missile were coming apart in flight, the control surfaces would be among the first to go, and then the missile would again be in a purely ballistic trajectory. Why was it wobbling? If it started tumbling end over end, I wouldn't expect it to survive more than 100 miles. Whatever destabilization occurred needed to start while the missile still had thrust, or the control surfaces were still intact.
Your first link is a translation of a patriotic Israeli article cheerleading the competence of their military. It doesn't necessarily make what they're saying false, but does make it suspect.
The second link is way low on content, I'm not sure how to judge it. All it says is "we looked at a bunch of videotapes and arrived at this conclusion". And then goes on to mention the bitter dispute between the U.S. and Israeli military over why the system didn't work so well in Israel.
I'm not sure I'm going to buy either argument. I know enough about flight characteristics to question the assertion that the scuds were so good at jinking and chaff the patriots (which were originally designed to hit jinking, chaff releasing aircraft) couldn't hit them.
If the scuds were dropping debris because extra fuel tanks made them unstable:
1) Why wasn't the wobble a pronounced problem at launch when the extra weight would have completely thrown off the trim characteristics of the missile?
2) Dropping "debris" is a bad thing, and it's only a matter of time before doing so results in an uncorrectable failure of the missiles flight aerodynamics. Why weren't most of them failing earlier?
3) Missiles don't fly in smooth trajectories nearly as often as you think. They jink to try and make anti missile systems (like say the Phalanx close-in weapons system) miss them or think they are dead and not worth any more attention.
Even if the patriots did fail, why would that have grave implications for our anti ballistic missile shield? SCUDs are cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles. Why do you think those big computers at Norad can accurately predict where the warheads will hit just after boost?
I'm not talking from a completely baseless pedestal here. I've written a Linux device driver, and am well aware of how loadable modules work. I am also well aware that everybody who tries or has tried distributing a binary module has had trouble. In fact to the best of my knowledge, nobody has built my driver from source (separately from the kernel source) as a module that could be loaded into the mdksecure kernel - so no binary would work for that anyway (and if you're using mandrake, there is a high probability you'll end up using that kernel).
How many binary module configurations would I have to make available to catch a reasonable swath of Linux users? How much would it cost me in support everytime someone says "Hey, when I add your module it says I might taint the kernel"?
What reasons do they have for not releasing specs? Well, in the case of my driver, the manufacturer (a fairly small player in the imaging industry) had come up with a clever way of doing color images at 8 bits per pixel with more color information than any other 8 bit per pixel color scheme. This means their camera can send either more fps than a similar quality camera, or more quality than another 8 bpp camera.
There are a lot of small players who have come up with something clever and would rather keep it as intellectual property than patent it for the world to see. The majority of users don't care if its open source or proprietary, they just want it to work.
That's a fundamental problem with monolithic kernels. Linux will continue to be rejected by the unwashed masses when adding new hardware means compiling a new kernel.
The "release often, release early" mantra is no longer used with kernel development. If your company released "Cool Hardware Thing" on March 1 and sent open source drivers for it to the community the same day, Joe Average would still not be able to use your hardware because 2.4.18 was released before then and 2.4.19 still isn't out (I don't see Joe Average being comfortable patching and recompiling his kernel). The situation is actually worse than that since Joe Average would probably have to wait for Red Hat to offer up that kernel revision it could easily take forever (or maybe the 2.4.18 kernel is available for users of 5.0 ?)
I have to admit, it's pretty slick the way windows comes up and says "Hey, I see you added some new hardware, why don't you stick in the CD the manufacturer gave you and I'll make it work".
</favorite rant>
Even with a standard Tivo, you can watch one program while recording another. There is an advantage over a normal VCR.
You can also watch 15 minutes of a show and then think "Hey, this is good I should record it", and Tivo will record it, including the 15 minutes you've already watched. That doesn't sound like such a great feature at first, but I can't tell you how many times I've got sucked into a program and my wife says "Hey, we gotta go do X". No problem, I just hit the record button and I can watch the show again from the beginning when our social calendar is taken care of.
The Tivo unit is being sold to you AT A LOSS. Tivo gives kickbacks to Quantum (the hard drive manufacturer) and Philips/Sony (the unit manufacturer) to sell Tivo's at a cost which will appeal to a customer. They recover this loss through the subscription. For $250 you can pay off the loss and get free programming for the life of that unit. The $250 does not transfer to another unit because that unit has also been subsidized.
I was in a similar boat, but decided I really wanted a DirecTivo (Records two shows at once off the satellite dish). After using Tivo for 6 months, I don't begrudge them their $10 anymore. The service is worth at least that for the convenience of watching what I want, when I want and skipping through the commercials and fluff. For example, I watch Jeopardy in about 15 minutes.
And last, but not least... It's hard to hack your VCR to give you a bash prompt. That has always been an appealing thing to me about Tivo. I love playing with hardware (I know I'm in minority, but still...)
"Lewd or lascivious purpose" sounds to be narrowly targeted enough.
A little off topic, but... I think the bill is still too broadly targeted.
What, somebody was secretly videotaped during an intimate moment in Louisianna and Louisianna had no law against it? Well, shame on Louisianna! Why does the FEDERAL government need to get in on this action? Was the video shot by someone in neighboring texas? Was she living on a military base? An indian reservation? Seems to me this sort of policing belongs squarely in the hands of the state. As much as I hate the "Let's form a militia and oppose the gub'mint" types, I think they should use this one as an indication of the government trying to nudge its way into more people's lives. No doubt the federal lawmakers will try and spin this as some sort of "civil rights" extension BS.
IANAL: There are some circumstances under which the law grants you "reasonable expectation" of privacy. For example, your employer absolutely may not tap in any way a bathroom or changing room (say if your workplace had a gym).
Of course the bathroom is the easy one. Things start going down hill from there. The courts have general held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the telephone, and employers are usually barred from recording calls to/from an external source. Hypothetical example: An employee waiting to hear the results of a VD test from their doctor will probably want the doctor to call them as soon as the results are in, but won't want it to be management's hot gossip of the week. The employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy when their doctor calls them on the phone whether it is at work or home.
When you get to email, the courts don't generally find personal issues which need prompt notification are transmitted via email. So the conditions under which you would need an expectation of privacy are far fewer, so monitoring internet crap is usually acceptable.
Spread spectrum is no magic bullet, but there is something that you can do with it that you can't with the non-spread spectrum system. You can run it over the top of narrow band transmissions. So you could have a spectrum divided into 100 parts for 100 people, then run another 100 spread spectrum over that. It increases the noise floor of the narrow band transceivers, but generally not enough to be an issue. Now you have 200 people using the spectrum that only 100 people could before (there are other benefits, such as fitting more people on the same spectrum than dedicated narrow band frequencies could support).
Spread spectrum is also resistant to multipath problems. So if you are in an area with mountains or metal buildings you shouldn't have multipath signal problems.
Great, more junk for those Everest-climbing do-gooders to clean up. "I found an oxygen canister, a dead guy and three attitude control thrusters"
Well, for starters Salt Lake County in Utah is ranked #31 on the American Lung Associations 2001 State of the Air worst counties. San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Cruz had no measured unhealthy ozone levels in that year. Why would they? The on shore breeze blows it all towards the inland valley.
You missed the bay area weather. Seasonally it is very mild.
In your "skilled workforce" section you forgot that Stanford and Berkeley are two of the top 5 engineering schools in the country according to U.S. News & World Report.
A "few" more workers available? You haven't been out here in a while have you? You have no idea how much talent is lying around out there unable to get a job anywhere (the market *really* sucks right now). There are thousands of talented (and tens of thousands of wannabe talented) people desperate for work here. People with Masters Degrees and experience behind them are taking 60K/yr jobs, if they're lucky enough to find them.
And as someone else mentioned, companies in the bay area like to do business with companies in the bay area. Why? They have this obsession with driving and meeting face to face I suppose. I've always been bitter about this fact. I've experienced it first hand a number of times. If they don't think they can get on the phone and arrange a meeting (and they love meetings, maybe that's why the dot coms failed, too many meetings about "what are we going to do?" and not enough doing) they don't want to do business with you.
I love Utah, and if there were jobs there, I'd move there. I like big houses in low density housing communities. But it's not for everyone, and there is no Sand Hill Road. Your Rackspace argument doesn't really hold. It's a hosting company. They're providing a service completely different from what Lineo is trying to do. Heck, Lineo was based in utah but they had a bay area office because they knew if you want bay area companies to buy your product/service, you need to be in the bay area.
Unless you are truly a power user, you do not have bandwidth to share. Your ISP probably sells you service, not bandwidth. That's why you can't call up your provider and say "Hey, when I download pr0n at 8PM my download is really slow, where's all that bandwidth I bought?". That's also why service providers are not happy about people setting up neighborhood 802.11 networks with only one person paying them for service (hey, you're just sharing your bandwidth, right?). No internet service ever gives you a gaurantee of throughput. In fact, every service provider over sells their bandwidth because most of your online time is spent reading not receiving (or sending).
You don't own the bandwidth, your provider does. If Brilliant is using that bandwidth, and is not providing the user with anything and is detrimental to the service of other people using that service provider, what you have is misappropriated bandwidth. With any luck AT&T will show up at Brilliant's office asking them to pay for it.
What Brilliant is doing is trying to make money by carving it out of the margins of the providers who would normally charge advertisers for hosting. The same amount of load is on the network, but the people carrying the load will get less income for it (and none of those companies have fat margins anymore).
Wow! Not that I don't believe you but my impression of C++ was that memory issues were worse because the compiler makes it easy to get a bitwise copy of an object and the first destructor that runs could leave dangling pointers in every other copy. Thus requiring consistent use of copy constructors, if only to print a message saying "you didn't really mean to copy me, did you?".
You've always had to pair allocate/free constructs in C and C++. The syntax being different shouldn't make them less likely to occur. Whether I allocate a bit map using new char[10000] or malloc(10000), doesn't make much difference.
If you're really that concerned you could leave off the &0xFF. As long as you aren't doing division or comparison it will be fine.
In RGB/BGR space you usually promote the individual elements to a wider type before working on them anyway. For example, if you're brightening an image, you can't keep the data in a byte because the byte will roll over if you overexpose the element.
If you need to store values that range from 0 to 255, a type that only runs from -128 to 127 won't work so well.
It will work just fine. The most you should have to do is a little casting and "& 0xFF" to compensate for type promotion.
(try converting a string to an int or vice-versa)
Ummm...
String s = "45";
int i = Integer.parseInt(s);
System.out.println("" + i);
From string to integer and back again. What was the hard part again?
And in case you're wondering,
cout << "hello";
Is not readable. "<<" is the shift operator. Operator overloading in C++ means "operators don't mean a thing, you have no gaurantees".
Further, Java is the fastest growing, probably widest deployed enterprise platform around. That means a lot of people not in academia.
What are you doing that is going to require you to double your storage requirements for your bitmap? Not having an unsigned datatype shouldn't do that.
And back in the day bumming your code to use less system resources was a requirement. I love these days, I don't want to go back. Several projects I have worked on would have shipped months earlier if we weren't so concerned with figuring out how to make it fit in 640K or 4MB or run on a 386sx33.
for simple things like, oh, I dunno.. ip addresses, or anything with a database, etc..
Why would IP addresses be a problem if stored in a signed 32 bit integer instead of unsigned? All you are really using the int for is a place to store bits. What would a database be doing that would make this a problem? (Java is a well established technology for enterprise, it's rare to see Java not used with a Database)
Because Java doesn't have signed data types (except char) doesn't mean you can't store a 32 bit unsigned value in a 32 bit signed integer.
You're only a couple months behind the times. That's not too bad I suppose. You might want to update your information because you're not knowledgable about recent changes in legislation by the government that affected service for DirectTV.
If Blizzard phased out a product, then bnetd.org would fall under the DMCA's protection against obsolesence. That would be something we would be looking for because then when Blizzard brought suit against bnetd.org, the people responsible for bnetd could ask EFF to write up the legal documents to ask the judge to throw out the case on those grounds.
Ignoring your apologetic about the web page being old...
Interesting, so they got a 144,000% increase in speed? Was this distributed over 1500 computers? You don't get that kind of speed up going from one computer to 10 or 20.
Sorry but that sounds too good to be true. You aren't astroturfing are you?
As for the Web Services aspect... You aren't seriously arguing that PRESENTATION allowed them to significantly reduce their development time, are you? They had to cluster their algorithm to get a 1440x speed improvement and it was all worth it because web services made it easy to view? Huh?
Hear hear!
This is a complex problem and I think a lot of the answers I'm reading on this topic center around a misconception on a lot of people's part about the difference in luminance perception and chrominance perception. The key issue is:
The eye is most sensitive to luminance changes in GREEN.
The eye is most sensitive to chrominance changes in BLUE.
Thus if you are trying to determine at what point the eye will say "hey there is a block of a different color on top of that one", blue is going to be an important part of your color model since while your eye isn't so good at picking up how bright a blue is, it is very sensitive to the relative shade around the blue wavelength something is.
So if you are trying to do a 3-space transform and distance and finding that colors which are linearly close to each other in CIELAB space are perceptually very different, it is very likely because it is a color in a space where the human eye is more perceptually sensitive. You are going to get "dead areas" of the model where the eye is not so good at viewing differences, and active areas where in a small space there seem to be quite a few different colors because the eye is perceptually sensitive in that area.
This is the reason you see odd patterns in color changes in a rainbow. You are seeing the relative sensitivities of your eye to pick up colors. Color perception is decidely non-linear and doesn't even fit a nice equation.