I bought some crappy HP InkJet for $35 dollars because I print precisely 2 pages per month and I didn't want to have to disconnect my wife's Laser from her stupid Macintosh and carry it over to my computer.
The chances of me ever buying a replacement cartridge for this thing are slim. In two years when I run out of ink, I'll just buy a new printer! At $35 bucks, it's less than the cost of the cartridge!
The chairman announced openly that we are 7-11, the president is busy at the production line in daytime and comes to the R&D to burn the other end of the candle in the evening. We work day and night and night and day to overcome all odds with Quanta...
The market was still small when Quanta decided to develop portable computers, desktop PC was still the mainstream on the market. Apart from LCD and HDD, which are exclusive parts to portable computers, all other parts are the same to that of the desktop computer. The situation is like putting parts of an Infiniti Q30 into a Nissan Sentra. The difficulties at that time is understandable. However hard it was, Quanta's R&D history was started then.
"Do the best to realize your dreams"
As a conclusion, portable PC R&D is brain-consuming work, and many of our colleagues have had their hair turn gray. However, when we see our dreams come true, no one has any regrets and we just keep trying a new task.
Under the direction and insistence of bosses, Quanta's R&D has been running toward practicability, with some differences from others. Low cost and suitability for mass production have been the highest commands of R&D. With cooperation from world leading manufacturers, Quanta products have earned some credits and praises from world famous computer magazines. It is not only recognition of the R&D work, but also a drive for Quanta's efforts on sales achievements.
If R&D is the locomotive, we have been guiding Quanta through all odds over the last decade. We will never spare any time as long as the R&D work continues.
Just how smug do you have to be to bother to announce a challenge like this just because you are so proud of yourself for knowing a fundamental result in information theory.
The answer: Really, really smug.
Of course any individual is individually powerless (usually) against large corporations, governments, etc.
But! You have to act as if you would if your lonely voice actually "mattered." You rely on the fact that if everyone acts similarly, your voice will be heard as a part of the group voice.
I think your cynicism is just a bit too overboard...individual decisions do matter when they are examined in the context of the group response because they comprise the group response.
I for one will continue to react to corporations as if the CEO was a personal friend. When millions of my closest friends and I act together it has the same effect.
I think the real cause for annoyance here is not a legal issue (whether one country can demand that another country censor something) or a cultural issue (whether France should have the right to do things the way it wants).
The real problem is how incredibly simple it is to get around any kind of block that Yahoo could impose. Any number of anonymous redirects will get around blocking very easily.
A ruling like this doesn't make sense because there is no way for anyone to implement the ruling. I think the general opinion around here is that we can't start to do anything useful about these issues until the judicial system takes some time to understand what is and isn't practical, what will and won't work.
-Zakk
Darn.
Just when I thought I was being intelligent and thoughtful, David Bring demonstrates that I'm just one of the many "males who think they'll vote for Ralph Nader."
Oh well. I think that after reading this letter I'm back in the Gore camp. The last thing I would wish for is a return to the pyramid.
There are certain problems in Computation (meaning algorithmic problems) that are impossible to solve. This can be proven mathematically. The most famous example is called "The Halting Problem" which asks if it is possible to write a computer program (lets call it A) that can determine if any other program (B) will ever finish, or if it will fall into an infinite loop.
It was proven mathematically that there is now way to write program A so that it will work for any other program B.
So the people deciding whether certain computational problems can be solved are the computer scientists and mathematicians.
I understand your concern that we shouldn't discourage people from trying to solve very hard problems, but if something is truy insoluble, then it is a waste of time. Think "trying to prove the earth is flat." It's not, and so this is an impossible task...that's why only crazy people try it!
Slashdot Mirror
I bought some crappy HP InkJet for $35 dollars because I print precisely 2 pages per month and I didn't want to have to disconnect my wife's Laser from her stupid Macintosh and carry it over to my computer.
The chances of me ever buying a replacement cartridge for this thing are slim. In two years when I run out of ink, I'll just buy a new printer! At $35 bucks, it's less than the cost of the cartridge!
From this part of the Quanta Site.
The chairman announced openly that we are 7-11, the president is busy at the production line in daytime and comes to the R&D to burn the other end of the candle in the evening. We work day and night and night and day to overcome all odds with Quanta...
The market was still small when Quanta decided to develop portable computers, desktop PC was still the mainstream on the market. Apart from LCD and HDD, which are exclusive parts to portable computers, all other parts are the same to that of the desktop computer. The situation is like putting parts of an Infiniti Q30 into a Nissan Sentra. The difficulties at that time is understandable. However hard it was, Quanta's R&D history was started then.
"Do the best to realize your dreams"
As a conclusion, portable PC R&D is brain-consuming work, and many of our colleagues have had their hair turn gray. However, when we see our dreams come true, no one has any regrets and we just keep trying a new task.
Under the direction and insistence of bosses, Quanta's R&D has been running toward practicability, with some differences from others. Low cost and suitability for mass production have been the highest commands of R&D. With cooperation from world leading manufacturers, Quanta products have earned some credits and praises from world famous computer magazines. It is not only recognition of the R&D work, but also a drive for Quanta's efforts on sales achievements.
If R&D is the locomotive, we have been guiding Quanta through all odds over the last decade. We will never spare any time as long as the R&D work continues.
Just how smug do you have to be to bother to announce a challenge like this just because you are so proud of yourself for knowing a fundamental result in information theory. The answer: Really, really smug.
Of course any individual is individually powerless (usually) against large corporations, governments, etc. But! You have to act as if you would if your lonely voice actually "mattered." You rely on the fact that if everyone acts similarly, your voice will be heard as a part of the group voice. I think your cynicism is just a bit too overboard...individual decisions do matter when they are examined in the context of the group response because they comprise the group response. I for one will continue to react to corporations as if the CEO was a personal friend. When millions of my closest friends and I act together it has the same effect.
I think the real cause for annoyance here is not a legal issue (whether one country can demand that another country censor something) or a cultural issue (whether France should have the right to do things the way it wants).
The real problem is how incredibly simple it is to get around any kind of block that Yahoo could impose. Any number of anonymous redirects will get around blocking very easily.
A ruling like this doesn't make sense because there is no way for anyone to implement the ruling. I think the general opinion around here is that we can't start to do anything useful about these issues until the judicial system takes some time to understand what is and isn't practical, what will and won't work.
-Zakk
I see the subtle sarcasm slipped past you.
Darn. Just when I thought I was being intelligent and thoughtful, David Bring demonstrates that I'm just one of the many "males who think they'll vote for Ralph Nader." Oh well. I think that after reading this letter I'm back in the Gore camp. The last thing I would wish for is a return to the pyramid.
It was proven mathematically that there is now way to write program A so that it will work for any other program B.
So the people deciding whether certain computational problems can be solved are the computer scientists and mathematicians.
I understand your concern that we shouldn't discourage people from trying to solve very hard problems, but if something is truy insoluble, then it is a waste of time. Think "trying to prove the earth is flat." It's not, and so this is an impossible task...that's why only crazy people try it!
-Zakk