IIRC, the debate was really over whether or not an OS should span different system processors to provide users with a similar experience/capabilities rather than just concentrate on the latest processors with a specific operating model. I don't see how it applies to the security debate of today.
I would consider the '86-'286-'386 to be different processors because of the 16 bit unprotected page ('86) versus 16 bit protected ('286) and 32 bit protected and flat ('386). The Minix micro-kernel was custom to each processor family and provided the ability to run apps on different systems. Linux was designed for the '386 (and follow on processors), ignoring the previous versions of hardware and making the assumption that anything less than the '386 was going the way of the dinosaur.
Regardless of the approach, don't forget that 25+ years ago, networking was quite primitive - most home users were using telephone line modems and businesses had closed networks (if they had them at all). Lynx was the web browser of choice (Mosaic was still a year or two away). Network/computer security was in its infancy (Sandra Bullock's "The Net" was a few years away). Email barely existed (I was working at IBM at the time and was able to get "myke@ibm.com" without anybody questioning it or there even being standards applied to email accounts).
So, I don't think you can say that if Tanenbaum won Linus over to the microkernel (as well as Microsoft and other vendors) there wouldn't be the security concerns of today. I can't see how potential security flaws (which would be obvious by people looking at it from a contemporary eye) would have been avoided as the software stack of 1992 evolved into the stack of today if the microkernel approach was taken then.
Calling what an audiologist (should) do as "pitch shifting" is inaccurate. They need to map out the frequency deficits and then determine which ones are the most critical for understanding speech. Then they will check against different ambient noise types and develop a profile. Next, they will create the ear mould that follows the profile with an eye towards avoiding resonances - they have a few tricks they can do in terms of adding cavities and ports which can improve the performance significantly. Then they need to put the person back in the testing booth and go through various sounds and recordings to make sure they come through as clearly as possible and you don't end up with any feedback/buzzing from the unit (very difficult when you have somebody with a very significant hearing loss in one ear like my son).
There's a certain amount of trial and error involved that is based on science. When we got our first hearing aid for our son, I was shocked at how poorly the audiologist understood the nature of sound - I ended up explaining a lot of basic (to me as an EE) concepts in terms of wavelengths and harmonics. The final result was very poor - she did basically what you described.
We found another audiologist who really knew her stuff and was able to experiment with different ear moulds and programming and brought my son's hearing up to 100% in terms of hearing conversations in quiet and moderately loud rooms (ie classrooms).
What was *really* interesting to me is how he sets the equalizer on his stereo - to me it's just about unintelligible but he naturally boosts different frequency ranges to get something he can understand/enjoy.
High end hearing aids (as WhatHump) indicated are very sophisticated devices and should probably cost around $100 to make (going by my experience with cellphones/manufacturing).
But, the big cost is the audiologist programming the DSPs in the hearing aids to the user. Ear moulds don't take very long to do and should not be more than $50 or so per ear.
A good audiologist with the right equipment (including a testing booth) that is willing to take the time to a) characterize the person's hearing loss, b) program the devices and design the ear mould to the user (there's actually a number of features that they can design into the mould to make the result better) and c) test/demonstrate the improvement in a testing booth and then tweak the programming and maybe redo the ear moulds to improve how the user can hear. Note that they need to test in different situations including moderately high noise to ensure there isn't feedback/buzzing by the hearing aid.
If you're spending less than two hours with the audiologist and they're not doing quantifiable tests to demonstrate that the hearing aid is working, you're probably getting ripped off. For my son, it took four hours and three ear moulds to get his right and the improvement was remarkable.
There are a number of hearing aids with BT. As I note in my post below they really don't work all that great for phone calls as they don't have a great algorithm for filtering out ambient noise when somebody is taking a call. I was told that this was to avoid situations where the user doesn't become oblivious to what's going on around them.
It's interesting to see the comments on this thread about power usage - neither of my kids have used BT enough with their hearing aids to see a battery life problem.
I have two kids who need hearing aids and this is not the first time I've seen these types of claims for wireless/device connections. They both have Bluetooth equipped devices and they're pretty marginal in terms of their usability. The two hearing aids listed here are $3k+ and, depending on your insurance, you will probably have to pay a pretty high percentage of that.
On the point of cost, most of what is paid out goes to the audiologist who's fitting and programming the hearing aids. $3k for a set of hearing aids is a lot of money when the audiologist doesn't know what they're doing and will result in you basically throwing the money away. But, an audiologist that knows what they are doing can make the $3k a bargain in the difference the person has in terms of improved hearing. Note that an audiologist who is skilled at working with the elderly will probably not have the experience dealing with hearing loss in younger people.
As for connecting to the phone, both of my kids have found that Bose Quiet Comfort 3 headphones work a lot better than their Bluetooth equipped hearing aids when taking calls, watching TV and playing games. From a person on the other side of the conversation, their ability to understand what is being said and respond appropriately is much better than with their existing hearing aids (Oticon - which work very well for them in normal conversation/circumstances) connected to their phones.
If you (or somebody in the family) needs hearing aids and wants to connect to phones and other devices, I'd recommend NOT going out and buying these hearing aids until the reviews are in and you have a quality audiologist who has experience with them.
Apparently, there are claims that there are a number of Chromebooks that will run Android apps - I found this article: https://www.laptopmag.com/arti... that lists the Chromebooks Android works on and how to enable it.
I have a number of Chromebooks (including some listed) and I haven't been able to get Google Play working. I'm expecting things to be better by the end of the year.
Clearly a lot of people want Musk and Tesla to fail and thought that the privatization messages that came out late last week was Musk losing it. I'm not a fanboy, but I must say there's a certain amount of amusement to be gained from seeing the posts and reactions of people who want him (and his businesses) to fail.
Hate Musk and his products all you want, but don't try to bet against him.
I've given up trying to keep track of how many times I've seen the Musk haters say "Musk has screwed the pooch this time", "Musk has yet again promised and not delivered" or "Musk doesn't know what he's talking about" only to be proven wrong. If you're so sure that Musk does not have have a plan with investors lined up and has made the announcement without talking to tax attorneys and has placed himself in legal jeopardy could you put your money where your mouth is?
The Tesla short sellers have been doing everything they can including fake announcements, generating rumours and harassing employees, suppliers and investors in order to hurt the share price of Tesla are now upset that Mr. Musk has said enough is enough?
It's worth going through the paper, this is some very interesting (and understandable) research with an actual application at the end. This is an study of flocking bird behaviour with the mathematics of the birds in the flock and the resulting flock behaviour being modeled and influenced using the drone.
I don't know how practical it will be for the thousands of airports out there but for large municipal airports i would think it's very valuable.
Read the paper, it seems that the issue is that the flocking birds have an exclusion zone when they're flying - when the drone enters it, the bird moves away and enters other birds exclusion zones causing a ripple effect and changing the direction of the flock.
So, this isn't something that birds will learn to ignore as not a threat.
I'm not surprised Mr. Musk is doing this, he is clearly fed up with Wall Street and trying to meet their quarterly expectations rather develop the company and the products for the long term. I would think that dealing with analysts/quarterly statements and their (potential) fallout to be essentially overwhelming as well as causing the executive suite to try and maintain a positive outlook every twelve weeks.
Going private doesn't mean that the stress of creating the best product and making a profit goes away, just that more focus can be put on the company and its products which should result in better products and a better ROI for the company's owners at the end of the day.
I would expect other companies with long lead time products (Boeing, Ford, etc.) will consider finding private investors and taking themselves out of the exchanges so they can focus on their businesses and not making Wall Street investors happy.
There's no plan for SpaceX to reduce prices even if they can recover the 2nd stage and the fairings - the business plan calls for increased profits as they have more reusable pieces.
When it comes right down to it, all smart devices need a text entry mechanism. I hate using the touchscreen on my iPhone for basically anything other than a text and the examples here seem to be pushing users in that direction.
Apple Engineers: Rather than trying to come up with new ways for users to enter text into Macbooks, why don't you accept the input method that has been around for more than a century and come up with a keyboard that fixes the problems that were introduced in 2016? If you don't feel like they can be fixed than either go back to the old mechanicals or come up with new ones.
When you have a problem with your hardware, the optimal solution is not to change everybody in the world's approach to interfacing with devices, you should fix the problem.
This idea comes under the heading of "Well, I don't have any useful research, so why don't I publish a paper taking a contrary tack and get noticed."
Clearly the author has, never written a line of code in his life that somebody has to maintain, dealt with product managers that want more for less, worked with QA and security or documented anything that he has written (how do you document that you've put deliberate bugs in the code that should be ignored down the road?).
So, write up a paper extolling the virtues that would be picked apart by any competent professional knowing that others in academia will never think about the practical implications of what's being suggested.
Slashdot Mirror
Honest officer, they're not marijuana plants, I'm running an experimental, all natural, plant based data centre for Amazon!
IIRC, the debate was really over whether or not an OS should span different system processors to provide users with a similar experience/capabilities rather than just concentrate on the latest processors with a specific operating model. I don't see how it applies to the security debate of today.
I would consider the '86-'286-'386 to be different processors because of the 16 bit unprotected page ('86) versus 16 bit protected ('286) and 32 bit protected and flat ('386). The Minix micro-kernel was custom to each processor family and provided the ability to run apps on different systems. Linux was designed for the '386 (and follow on processors), ignoring the previous versions of hardware and making the assumption that anything less than the '386 was going the way of the dinosaur.
Regardless of the approach, don't forget that 25+ years ago, networking was quite primitive - most home users were using telephone line modems and businesses had closed networks (if they had them at all). Lynx was the web browser of choice (Mosaic was still a year or two away). Network/computer security was in its infancy (Sandra Bullock's "The Net" was a few years away). Email barely existed (I was working at IBM at the time and was able to get "myke@ibm.com" without anybody questioning it or there even being standards applied to email accounts).
So, I don't think you can say that if Tanenbaum won Linus over to the microkernel (as well as Microsoft and other vendors) there wouldn't be the security concerns of today. I can't see how potential security flaws (which would be obvious by people looking at it from a contemporary eye) would have been avoided as the software stack of 1992 evolved into the stack of today if the microkernel approach was taken then.
Calling what an audiologist (should) do as "pitch shifting" is inaccurate. They need to map out the frequency deficits and then determine which ones are the most critical for understanding speech. Then they will check against different ambient noise types and develop a profile. Next, they will create the ear mould that follows the profile with an eye towards avoiding resonances - they have a few tricks they can do in terms of adding cavities and ports which can improve the performance significantly. Then they need to put the person back in the testing booth and go through various sounds and recordings to make sure they come through as clearly as possible and you don't end up with any feedback/buzzing from the unit (very difficult when you have somebody with a very significant hearing loss in one ear like my son).
There's a certain amount of trial and error involved that is based on science. When we got our first hearing aid for our son, I was shocked at how poorly the audiologist understood the nature of sound - I ended up explaining a lot of basic (to me as an EE) concepts in terms of wavelengths and harmonics. The final result was very poor - she did basically what you described.
We found another audiologist who really knew her stuff and was able to experiment with different ear moulds and programming and brought my son's hearing up to 100% in terms of hearing conversations in quiet and moderately loud rooms (ie classrooms).
What was *really* interesting to me is how he sets the equalizer on his stereo - to me it's just about unintelligible but he naturally boosts different frequency ranges to get something he can understand/enjoy.
High end hearing aids (as WhatHump) indicated are very sophisticated devices and should probably cost around $100 to make (going by my experience with cellphones/manufacturing).
But, the big cost is the audiologist programming the DSPs in the hearing aids to the user. Ear moulds don't take very long to do and should not be more than $50 or so per ear.
A good audiologist with the right equipment (including a testing booth) that is willing to take the time to a) characterize the person's hearing loss, b) program the devices and design the ear mould to the user (there's actually a number of features that they can design into the mould to make the result better) and c) test/demonstrate the improvement in a testing booth and then tweak the programming and maybe redo the ear moulds to improve how the user can hear. Note that they need to test in different situations including moderately high noise to ensure there isn't feedback/buzzing by the hearing aid.
If you're spending less than two hours with the audiologist and they're not doing quantifiable tests to demonstrate that the hearing aid is working, you're probably getting ripped off. For my son, it took four hours and three ear moulds to get his right and the improvement was remarkable.
There are a number of hearing aids with BT. As I note in my post below they really don't work all that great for phone calls as they don't have a great algorithm for filtering out ambient noise when somebody is taking a call. I was told that this was to avoid situations where the user doesn't become oblivious to what's going on around them.
It's interesting to see the comments on this thread about power usage - neither of my kids have used BT enough with their hearing aids to see a battery life problem.
I have two kids who need hearing aids and this is not the first time I've seen these types of claims for wireless/device connections. They both have Bluetooth equipped devices and they're pretty marginal in terms of their usability. The two hearing aids listed here are $3k+ and, depending on your insurance, you will probably have to pay a pretty high percentage of that.
On the point of cost, most of what is paid out goes to the audiologist who's fitting and programming the hearing aids. $3k for a set of hearing aids is a lot of money when the audiologist doesn't know what they're doing and will result in you basically throwing the money away. But, an audiologist that knows what they are doing can make the $3k a bargain in the difference the person has in terms of improved hearing. Note that an audiologist who is skilled at working with the elderly will probably not have the experience dealing with hearing loss in younger people.
As for connecting to the phone, both of my kids have found that Bose Quiet Comfort 3 headphones work a lot better than their Bluetooth equipped hearing aids when taking calls, watching TV and playing games. From a person on the other side of the conversation, their ability to understand what is being said and respond appropriately is much better than with their existing hearing aids (Oticon - which work very well for them in normal conversation/circumstances) connected to their phones.
If you (or somebody in the family) needs hearing aids and wants to connect to phones and other devices, I'd recommend NOT going out and buying these hearing aids until the reviews are in and you have a quality audiologist who has experience with them.
With the right marketing, I think this vehicle could be very successful.
And if they're paying more than $200 per license, they're getting hosed!
I can't believe that nobody's noted that Elliot in Mr. Robot used a faked Fax to get access to Police data: https://www.theverge.com/2016/...
Thanx - I tried a couple of our Chromebooks today and found some that run Android apps.
You definitely require a touchscreen and accelerometer.
Apparently, there are claims that there are a number of Chromebooks that will run Android apps - I found this article: https://www.laptopmag.com/arti... that lists the Chromebooks Android works on and how to enable it.
I have a number of Chromebooks (including some listed) and I haven't been able to get Google Play working. I'm expecting things to be better by the end of the year.
YMMV
Agree 100% Maybe not the most ethical way to negotiate a deal, but one that seems to be right for him at this time.
Clearly a lot of people want Musk and Tesla to fail and thought that the privatization messages that came out late last week was Musk losing it. I'm not a fanboy, but I must say there's a certain amount of amusement to be gained from seeing the posts and reactions of people who want him (and his businesses) to fail.
Hate Musk and his products all you want, but don't try to bet against him.
I've given up trying to keep track of how many times I've seen the Musk haters say "Musk has screwed the pooch this time", "Musk has yet again promised and not delivered" or "Musk doesn't know what he's talking about" only to be proven wrong. If you're so sure that Musk does not have have a plan with investors lined up and has made the announcement without talking to tax attorneys and has placed himself in legal jeopardy could you put your money where your mouth is?
The Tesla short sellers have been doing everything they can including fake announcements, generating rumours and harassing employees, suppliers and investors in order to hurt the share price of Tesla are now upset that Mr. Musk has said enough is enough?
It's worth going through the paper, this is some very interesting (and understandable) research with an actual application at the end. This is an study of flocking bird behaviour with the mathematics of the birds in the flock and the resulting flock behaviour being modeled and influenced using the drone.
I don't know how practical it will be for the thousands of airports out there but for large municipal airports i would think it's very valuable.
Read the paper, it seems that the issue is that the flocking birds have an exclusion zone when they're flying - when the drone enters it, the bird moves away and enters other birds exclusion zones causing a ripple effect and changing the direction of the flock.
So, this isn't something that birds will learn to ignore as not a threat.
I'm not surprised Mr. Musk is doing this, he is clearly fed up with Wall Street and trying to meet their quarterly expectations rather develop the company and the products for the long term. I would think that dealing with analysts/quarterly statements and their (potential) fallout to be essentially overwhelming as well as causing the executive suite to try and maintain a positive outlook every twelve weeks.
Going private doesn't mean that the stress of creating the best product and making a profit goes away, just that more focus can be put on the company and its products which should result in better products and a better ROI for the company's owners at the end of the day.
I would expect other companies with long lead time products (Boeing, Ford, etc.) will consider finding private investors and taking themselves out of the exchanges so they can focus on their businesses and not making Wall Street investors happy.
Edgar Cayce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce) was considered a somnambulant psychic - he gave prognostications when he was asleep.
If the train station could do that, it's time to call in Mulder and Scully.
There's no plan for SpaceX to reduce prices even if they can recover the 2nd stage and the fairings - the business plan calls for increased profits as they have more reusable pieces.
When it comes right down to it, all smart devices need a text entry mechanism. I hate using the touchscreen on my iPhone for basically anything other than a text and the examples here seem to be pushing users in that direction.
Apple Engineers: Rather than trying to come up with new ways for users to enter text into Macbooks, why don't you accept the input method that has been around for more than a century and come up with a keyboard that fixes the problems that were introduced in 2016? If you don't feel like they can be fixed than either go back to the old mechanicals or come up with new ones.
When you have a problem with your hardware, the optimal solution is not to change everybody in the world's approach to interfacing with devices, you should fix the problem.
I can honestly say that this idea is so dumb that it hasn't been parodied in the comics (yet).
This idea comes under the heading of "Well, I don't have any useful research, so why don't I publish a paper taking a contrary tack and get noticed."
Clearly the author has, never written a line of code in his life that somebody has to maintain, dealt with product managers that want more for less, worked with QA and security or documented anything that he has written (how do you document that you've put deliberate bugs in the code that should be ignored down the road?).
So, write up a paper extolling the virtues that would be picked apart by any competent professional knowing that others in academia will never think about the practical implications of what's being suggested.
I don't like to call anybody an idiot, but I don't know any other way to end this sentence.
Babes with big tits, speedboats and mountains of cocaine.
Otherwise, what's the point?