So when I tell you to go to 5TH STREET and BROADWAY, you won't have to ask me to quit yelling and I won't have to explain that I wasn't yelling and that is how the street names are actually spelled.
the purpose of a summary is not to include every last fact and detail mentioned in the article; it's to give the reader enough information to decide whether reading the full article is worth it.
If you think a summary can actually help get a/. reader to RTFA, you must be new here...
You know all of those guys who worked for NASA in the 60s, designing and building the rockets that took us to the moon? Well, they had radioactive sources and Geiger counters in their science kits.
And kids today are going to have to fight to get paper clips and magnets. Sigh.
I think you may have answered your own question as to quality of converted 3D...
Hell, RotJ was on TV a few weeks ago and for some reason I watched part of it (have it on DVD already, of course:) I forgot how absolutely AWFUL the CG he added to it looked (notably the idiotic extra "song and dance" scene in Jabba's palace... uuugh, still makes me nauseous...)
But I have a few friends working at companies like Lockheed, Applied Materials, Loral, etc with security clearance levels such that they are basically unable to talk about much of what they do. Clearly not the same as being in the front lines (even in a "cyber" aspect) but I guess that's life, use your skills where they are needed...
And personally, I think "honor" is just recognition for something you should do for yourself and the people who depend on you, not for the approval of others. I'm sure the best soldiers don't care about medals. To use my example above, none of those people I mentioned can describe all of the cool things they do - and keeping that commitment is a pretty honorable thing.
Yeah, I know who John Nash is, and about his research. I was just pointing out that it was a bad example of a civilian who was a willing "warrior" for the US army. His research into game theory may have had military application, but that's not why he did it.
In fact, in real life he fled to Europe and tried to seek political asylum in East Germany. A true patriot. Though he did have schizophrenia, so I wouldn't exactly call the act "treasonous", just disturbed.
On the other hand, you would like to contribute directly, which is great. But that doesn't mean just because you can't enlist that you can't contribute to the field - there are plenty of civilian jobs that work with the military!
So if you wear glasses and have asthma (typical geek), how do you join the military? You'd get screened out.
Seriously? Notwithstanding the entire point of my post of "geek" being a stupid and mostly mythical stereotype, that is not true either. Wearing glasses/contacts does NOT exclude you from the military. Asthma, maybe, but who cares, as I said, find another job. Honestly, the military doens't even pay that well, otherwise there would be tons of smart, fit, technically competent people applying every day. Overall, I think you may base too much of your assumptions on movies.
And Eintein didn't know what he was working on, but he did know he was working on a top secret project so he had an idea that it was for the government and...
What the heck are you talking about? Seriously, read what you wrote, it sounds like a conspiracy theorist. Not sure what movie you got your information from, but I guess it didn't even set up the fake plot well enough to comprehend it. If you are interested in the life of Albert Einstein, read a biography, don't guess...
ohn Nash did consider himself to be a warrior, despite the fact that he was paranoid he did a lot of intellectual work which has military application.
Another movie that was SO far off from the reality. Jeesh...
Thats sensible, so why don't they just take techie civilians and train them? Not everybody can be a veteran.
Sure - if you want to work for the military, join the military. Then, yes, you too can be a veteran. If you can't make it through the training, no big deal, find another job, right?
Eintein wasn't a veteran and he helped invent the atomic bomb. To say he isn't a warrior is absolutely insane.
Sorry, but you are wrong on both statements. Einstein was one of the most brilliant minds of the century, but beyond general relativity he did almost nothing to "invent" the atomic bomb, and would have been mortified to be called a "warrior". Here's a direct quote:
"My part in producing the atomic bomb consisted in a single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt, pressing the need for experiments on a larger scale in order to explore the possibilities for the production of an atomic bomb. I was fully aware of the terrible danger to mankind in case this attempt succeeded. But the likelihood that the Germans were working on the same problem with a chance of succeeding forced me to this step. I could do nothing else although I have always been a convinced pacifist. To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary murder."
shouldn't it be far easier to train techies for the military than train airmen for the data center?
My whole point is it doesn't make any sense to differentiate. If you are smart and motivated to learn both, who cares what path you take to the same result?
It's not like they have the cream of the crop, technically speaking.
I disagree - they are not all "airmen". A high school friend of mine went to the Air Force Academy and majored in electrical engineering, going on to be an F-16 pilot. Another is a Lt. Col with a Phd in Psychology. I'd feel pretty comfortable with either going into a "Cyber Command" post. And it sounds like those qualifications (depending on the role) are pretty standard for the job.
There is a reason the USAF was responsible for much of the early "cyber warfare" - there are a lot of really smart, well trained people there.
What I don't understand in the slightest is why the article or/. responses are making a distinction between "veteran" and "techie"?? A veteran is someone with military training and experience. A "techie" (another stupid vague term) is someone with technical training. It seems obvious to me that the right person for this job is someone who falls into both categories, and given the technology used today in the military, there should be plenty of those.
While the quote from the office was pretty stupid, it was also the only real mention of the term "geek" in the article. His point was he wanted competent technical people who also had military training, not "techie" civilians. And if I go in for laser eye surgery, I'd prefer the experienced ophthamologist perform it, not the guy who built the laser.
Of course, Hastings has also categorically stated they are a subscription service and are not interested in per-movie VOD. That's why their streaming catalog of new releases blows, and they are even giving up on new releases on DVD for some studios.
The studios will never EVER go for that with their blockbuster new releases, unless Netflix is basically willing to pay the entire DVD/VOD future revenues of EACH major new release (which could be hundreds of millions) upfront (or I suppose track the movie downloads and pay a couple of dollars for each one).
Unless something fundamentally changes, it's always going to be a "pay per view" VOD model for major new releases (and some very popular library titles, like Disney, etc), and a subscription model for the older library titles and (most but not all) TV shows.
Which only occurred after you didn't return it for a week! Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie forever?
I have had the same Netflix title for the last 3 months, and haven't been charged anything (I only really use Netflix for streaming TV shows or some old movies; Vudu is much better for most movies, especially new releases). Of course, if I ever cancel Netflix they'll ask for it back, I'm sure.
Not that I think their late policy is that bad. Back when I used Blockbuster AFAIK if you brought the movie back after a week they'd refund your money anyway. But if they want to compete, they have to come a lot closer to matching their competitors than that...
I don't know, that just seems to me kind of like saying "Ford or GM shouldn't exist, but for the stupidity of the railroads."
Amazon at the core is about "selling books" about as much as, say, Walgreens is about "selling drugs".
The innovation wasn't what they sell, it's the way they sell it. Amazon may have started out primarily in books, but they created the infrastructure to sell anything as easily as possible while minimizing their own physical inventory. Now books are less than 20% of their total revenue, and probably a lot less of their profit. Innovation just isn't that easy, otherwise there would be no new companies, only existing ones growing ever larger...
Blockbuster, on the other hand, definitely had the potential to compete with Netflix. But again, there was more to it than just the product - or the model, in their case. I used to subscribe to Blockbuster's DVD my mail service - it was not quite as polished as Netflix, but it was a better deal in almost every way (price, free physical rentals, return DVD to store for instant credit, and generally faster mail delivery). I eventually switched to Netflix because Blockbuster screwed up not their original effort to compete, but the second one - streaming video. They took too long to offer an alternative, and then when they did they acquired one of the worst movie streaming services on the Internet (Movielink). And that was the final nail...
mobile accounts for only 2.6% of web views, and the iOS share stands at only 1.1%. By comparison, Silverlight penetration now stands at 51% while 97% of web surfers have Flash installed
What do "web views" have to do with "installed apps"? Those aren't measuring the same thing at all.
Besides, as some have already pointed out, mobile devices like the iPhone tend to have dedicated apps (Facebook, Twitter, NY Times, AP News, Yelp, dictionaries, maps. email, weather, you name it) rather than just using the web browser.
Completely irrelevant to my point, but - your statement just doesn't make sense...
If the rotational speed was more than offset by reduced density, then it would be SLOWER to seek with a 15k disk, as well (seek are a combination of moving laterally track to track, and waiting for rotation - both of those would be negatively impacted by a density that resulted in LESS data traversed over time than a slower disk).
You certainly won't get a 50% improvement in seek times, and the controller is probably going to the bottleneck for throughput, anyway.
In fact, we have done performance comparisons with 7k, 10k, and 15k disks when building video streaming servers. All other things the same, the sustained write performance was negligible, but the sustained read was significantly better with the 15k's. Of course, the rotational speed may not be the only difference - better firmware, caching, read ahead, etc, can help... but those are the kind of things that you get in the higher end disks, so it's relevant.
If you had said "15k disks don't provide a practical increase in write throughput relative to their available capacities" - it might have been an interesting point. But "15k disks don't provide high sequential throughput"? Relative to what? What is "high"? It just isn't a useful comment.
This is nothing new. I have had to adapt to the majority since about the age of 6 when there just weren't enough left handed scissors (with the green handle!) to go around.
By now I almost exclusively use a mouse with the right hand (decent ambidextrous mice for the most part died out years ago). Hmm. Maybe that's also why I suck at Starcraft 2 so badly.
I agree that we are in a worse position now, and that not all legislation of the 30's was helpful. But as bad as the Smoot-Hawley act was, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion (and in fact supports my original point), because it was passed under Republican pressure and signed by Herbert Hoover in 1930. FDR wasn't even elected until 1932, and he was completely against it.
While WW2 obviously was the final push that ended the depression, it was clearly not the only thing. By the start of US involvement in WW2 unemployment had dropped from a high of 25% to 9%. Something worked...
Anyway, I think it's impossible to speculate too accurately on what would have happened economically without WW2, and how much the New Deal set up the foundation for recovery. But as I said, I agree that we are not as well positioned for recovery as we were back then. But we are also not NEARLY as bad off as we were back then.
Slashdot Mirror
If one party has giant pile of nukes, and the other doesn't, why *should* the treaty be balanced?
Iran as a country, maybe not. But its current leaders, especially Ahmadinejad, are NOT rational nor pragmatic.
I guess they just want to have a horse in the (Middle East) race, even if their horse is batshit crazy.
So when I tell you to go to 5TH STREET and BROADWAY, you won't have to ask me to quit yelling and I won't have to explain that I wasn't yelling and that is how the street names are actually spelled.
This is New York. It won't make a difference.
Actually, when I step back 5 feet from my laptop screen, the caps are a LOT easier to read...
the purpose of a summary is not to include every last fact and detail mentioned in the article; it's to give the reader enough information to decide whether reading the full article is worth it.
If you think a summary can actually help get a /. reader to RTFA, you must be new here...
You know all of those guys who worked for NASA in the 60s, designing and building the rockets that took us to the moon? Well, they had radioactive sources and Geiger counters in their science kits.
And kids today are going to have to fight to get paper clips and magnets. Sigh.
And died, ironically.
As long as we're doing the overused meme thing...
In Soviet Russia, vodka makes you!
I think you may have answered your own question as to quality of converted 3D...
Hell, RotJ was on TV a few weeks ago and for some reason I watched part of it (have it on DVD already, of course :) I forgot how absolutely AWFUL the CG he added to it looked (notably the idiotic extra "song and dance" scene in Jabba's palace... uuugh, still makes me nauseous...)
Like what?
I'm not an expert on the topic, definitely...
But I have a few friends working at companies like Lockheed, Applied Materials, Loral, etc with security clearance levels such that they are basically unable to talk about much of what they do. Clearly not the same as being in the front lines (even in a "cyber" aspect) but I guess that's life, use your skills where they are needed...
And personally, I think "honor" is just recognition for something you should do for yourself and the people who depend on you, not for the approval of others. I'm sure the best soldiers don't care about medals. To use my example above, none of those people I mentioned can describe all of the cool things they do - and keeping that commitment is a pretty honorable thing.
Yeah, I know who John Nash is, and about his research. I was just pointing out that it was a bad example of a civilian who was a willing "warrior" for the US army. His research into game theory may have had military application, but that's not why he did it.
In fact, in real life he fled to Europe and tried to seek political asylum in East Germany. A true patriot. Though he did have schizophrenia, so I wouldn't exactly call the act "treasonous", just disturbed.
On the other hand, you would like to contribute directly, which is great. But that doesn't mean just because you can't enlist that you can't contribute to the field - there are plenty of civilian jobs that work with the military!
So if you wear glasses and have asthma (typical geek), how do you join the military? You'd get screened out.
Seriously? Notwithstanding the entire point of my post of "geek" being a stupid and mostly mythical stereotype, that is not true either. Wearing glasses/contacts does NOT exclude you from the military. Asthma, maybe, but who cares, as I said, find another job. Honestly, the military doens't even pay that well, otherwise there would be tons of smart, fit, technically competent people applying every day. Overall, I think you may base too much of your assumptions on movies.
And Eintein didn't know what he was working on, but he did know he was working on a top secret project so he had an idea that it was for the government and...
What the heck are you talking about? Seriously, read what you wrote, it sounds like a conspiracy theorist. Not sure what movie you got your information from, but I guess it didn't even set up the fake plot well enough to comprehend it. If you are interested in the life of Albert Einstein, read a biography, don't guess...
ohn Nash did consider himself to be a warrior, despite the fact that he was paranoid he did a lot of intellectual work which has military application.
Another movie that was SO far off from the reality. Jeesh...
Thats sensible, so why don't they just take techie civilians and train them? Not everybody can be a veteran.
Sure - if you want to work for the military, join the military. Then, yes, you too can be a veteran. If you can't make it through the training, no big deal, find another job, right?
Eintein wasn't a veteran and he helped invent the atomic bomb. To say he isn't a warrior is absolutely insane.
Sorry, but you are wrong on both statements. Einstein was one of the most brilliant minds of the century, but beyond general relativity he did almost nothing to "invent" the atomic bomb, and would have been mortified to be called a "warrior". Here's a direct quote:
"My part in producing the atomic bomb consisted in a single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt, pressing the need for experiments on a larger scale in order to explore the possibilities for the production of an atomic bomb. I was fully aware of the terrible danger to mankind in case this attempt succeeded. But the likelihood that the Germans were working on the same problem with a chance of succeeding forced me to this step. I could do nothing else although I have always been a convinced pacifist. To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary murder."
shouldn't it be far easier to train techies for the military than train airmen for the data center?
My whole point is it doesn't make any sense to differentiate. If you are smart and motivated to learn both, who cares what path you take to the same result?
It's not like they have the cream of the crop, technically speaking.
I disagree - they are not all "airmen". A high school friend of mine went to the Air Force Academy and majored in electrical engineering, going on to be an F-16 pilot. Another is a Lt. Col with a Phd in Psychology. I'd feel pretty comfortable with either going into a "Cyber Command" post. And it sounds like those qualifications (depending on the role) are pretty standard for the job.
There is a reason the USAF was responsible for much of the early "cyber warfare" - there are a lot of really smart, well trained people there.
What I don't understand in the slightest is why the article or /. responses are making a distinction between "veteran" and "techie"?? A veteran is someone with military training and experience. A "techie" (another stupid vague term) is someone with technical training. It seems obvious to me that the right person for this job is someone who falls into both categories, and given the technology used today in the military, there should be plenty of those.
While the quote from the office was pretty stupid, it was also the only real mention of the term "geek" in the article. His point was he wanted competent technical people who also had military training, not "techie" civilians. And if I go in for laser eye surgery, I'd prefer the experienced ophthamologist perform it, not the guy who built the laser.
Of course, Hastings has also categorically stated they are a subscription service and are not interested in per-movie VOD. That's why their streaming catalog of new releases blows, and they are even giving up on new releases on DVD for some studios.
The studios will never EVER go for that with their blockbuster new releases, unless Netflix is basically willing to pay the entire DVD/VOD future revenues of EACH major new release (which could be hundreds of millions) upfront (or I suppose track the movie downloads and pay a couple of dollars for each one).
Unless something fundamentally changes, it's always going to be a "pay per view" VOD model for major new releases (and some very popular library titles, like Disney, etc), and a subscription model for the older library titles and (most but not all) TV shows.
Which only occurred after you didn't return it for a week! Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie forever?
I have had the same Netflix title for the last 3 months, and haven't been charged anything (I only really use Netflix for streaming TV shows or some old movies; Vudu is much better for most movies, especially new releases). Of course, if I ever cancel Netflix they'll ask for it back, I'm sure.
Not that I think their late policy is that bad. Back when I used Blockbuster AFAIK if you brought the movie back after a week they'd refund your money anyway. But if they want to compete, they have to come a lot closer to matching their competitors than that...
I don't know, that just seems to me kind of like saying "Ford or GM shouldn't exist, but for the stupidity of the railroads."
Amazon at the core is about "selling books" about as much as, say, Walgreens is about "selling drugs".
The innovation wasn't what they sell, it's the way they sell it. Amazon may have started out primarily in books, but they created the infrastructure to sell anything as easily as possible while minimizing their own physical inventory. Now books are less than 20% of their total revenue, and probably a lot less of their profit. Innovation just isn't that easy, otherwise there would be no new companies, only existing ones growing ever larger...
Blockbuster, on the other hand, definitely had the potential to compete with Netflix. But again, there was more to it than just the product - or the model, in their case. I used to subscribe to Blockbuster's DVD my mail service - it was not quite as polished as Netflix, but it was a better deal in almost every way (price, free physical rentals, return DVD to store for instant credit, and generally faster mail delivery). I eventually switched to Netflix because Blockbuster screwed up not their original effort to compete, but the second one - streaming video. They took too long to offer an alternative, and then when they did they acquired one of the worst movie streaming services on the Internet (Movielink). And that was the final nail...
mobile accounts for only 2.6% of web views, and the iOS share stands at only 1.1%. By comparison, Silverlight penetration now stands at 51% while 97% of web surfers have Flash installed
What do "web views" have to do with "installed apps"? Those aren't measuring the same thing at all.
Besides, as some have already pointed out, mobile devices like the iPhone tend to have dedicated apps (Facebook, Twitter, NY Times, AP News, Yelp, dictionaries, maps. email, weather, you name it) rather than just using the web browser.
I heard he was working undercover with Chuck Norris!
Completely irrelevant to my point, but - your statement just doesn't make sense...
If the rotational speed was more than offset by reduced density, then it would be SLOWER to seek with a 15k disk, as well (seek are a combination of moving laterally track to track, and waiting for rotation - both of those would be negatively impacted by a density that resulted in LESS data traversed over time than a slower disk).
You certainly won't get a 50% improvement in seek times, and the controller is probably going to the bottleneck for throughput, anyway.
In fact, we have done performance comparisons with 7k, 10k, and 15k disks when building video streaming servers. All other things the same, the sustained write performance was negligible, but the sustained read was significantly better with the 15k's. Of course, the rotational speed may not be the only difference - better firmware, caching, read ahead, etc, can help... but those are the kind of things that you get in the higher end disks, so it's relevant.
If you had said "15k disks don't provide a practical increase in write throughput relative to their available capacities" - it might have been an interesting point. But "15k disks don't provide high sequential throughput"? Relative to what? What is "high"? It just isn't a useful comment.
1080p24 is about 150 MB/s and 1080p60 is a bit under 400MB/s. About 1 and 2.5TB, respectively for 2 hours of video.
Not trivial numbers, but a decent machine with a bunch of RAM and some striped 15k disks could easily do it.
As a leftie, I have to agree.
This is nothing new. I have had to adapt to the majority since about the age of 6 when there just weren't enough left handed scissors (with the green handle!) to go around.
By now I almost exclusively use a mouse with the right hand (decent ambidextrous mice for the most part died out years ago). Hmm. Maybe that's also why I suck at Starcraft 2 so badly.
I agree that we are in a worse position now, and that not all legislation of the 30's was helpful. But as bad as the Smoot-Hawley act was, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion (and in fact supports my original point), because it was passed under Republican pressure and signed by Herbert Hoover in 1930. FDR wasn't even elected until 1932, and he was completely against it.
While WW2 obviously was the final push that ended the depression, it was clearly not the only thing. By the start of US involvement in WW2 unemployment had dropped from a high of 25% to 9%. Something worked...
Anyway, I think it's impossible to speculate too accurately on what would have happened economically without WW2, and how much the New Deal set up the foundation for recovery. But as I said, I agree that we are not as well positioned for recovery as we were back then. But we are also not NEARLY as bad off as we were back then.