I have encountered the crapware Comast nightmare as well, but discovered there's an easy solution. Call Comcast, and tell them that you had it all installed and it was working, but now has suddenly stopped since you moved your computer room or something. They may need the MAC address off the cable modem, but they'll reset whatever they need to at their end and you can just connect using DHCP. I've done this a couple of times, and it's worked fine.
For those who've had no problems, your local Comcast setup might be different. Around here (New Hampshire), when you just try to connect Comcast gives you a rewarding web page that says you need to install their software before you can connect, and blocks all other traffic.
IEEE Spectrum had an article about this last year ( http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069 ); the authors actually sampled in-flight RF data and reviewed some related publications. They also discussed the current reporting methods for HED interference and discussed some of the reports. Bottom line for those that don't want to read the whole article: some cell phones and other devices emit innocuous signals that pose no significant danger, while _other_ cell phones and devices pose significant risks of interfering with avionic electronics, depending on the frequencies they use. This inconsistency alone is a problem. "Sure, you can use your AT&T phone, ma'am. I'm sorry sir, you have to turn your Sprint phone off or we're all going to die". The FCC and FAA do not work with each other (as a rule of thumb), so both the technical and regulatory issues can conflict with one another.
It's a good article for the layperson, I'd encourage reading it.
IANAR, but I married one
on
Film to X-rays?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Since my wife the radiologist has the day off today, I swiveled my chair around and asked her. So here's a bullet list of relevant points combining my editorializing with her systems knowledge:
-Most medical stuff is regulated at a state level (in the US, anyway), not at a federal level, so exercise caution when saying 'it's the law'.
-Radiology films are 11"x17", so you would need a big (and expensive - my wife has a couple thousand old films from her research we'd like to digitize, so I've shopped) scanner to do this.
-Contrary to popular belief, you do not own your medical records; the physician who generated them does. You do, however, have the right to access them and the request a copy. You may be required to pay a fee for the copy, but it's usually something reasonable (e.g. $10). I realize this may raise a ruckus - this isn't flame bait or an ethical statement, it's a statement about the way it is. Deal with it.
-You may request a copy of your films to keep, rather than borrow. Again, there may be a fee. -Many practices now use PACS systems to handle the images, and can burn a CD of the data that can be read by a radiologist; many even come with the reading software on the CD. As another poster pointed out, the image data will in all likelihood conform to the DICOM standard http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/dicom.html , and can be shared with your other physicians readily. Because the CD systems are relatively new, many hospitals and imaging centers haven't yet implemented a policy of how to charge for them - so you may be able to get it for free. Or not.
-So, in a nutshell: If you are, for whatever reason, not willing to ask your physician to share the information (which is the best route - physicians are our partners in care, not our adversaries), then request a copy that you own; don't borrow. Present this data to the physician you are seeking a second opinion from. Good luck, and I hope he can treat the arthritis!
I think CVS is still exclusively an EK house, so that's probably a thermal printer. They look a lot like an inkjet printer until you pick it up - they're heavy! If you listen to it print, you can tell - since the thermal printer makes 4 passes (I goofed BTW - I think all the printers are CMY+finish coat, no K), you should hear four discrete whines, separated the the sound of the paper being pulled back into the printer. An 8x10 print will take 30-60 seconds, depending on the model of the printer they have in there.
That said, there are other companies putting inkjet kiosks into play now, and HP is certainly a player in the field. You can probably find out just by looking at the branding of the kiosk and a little web homework who's printer is inside.
My exposure to these technologies was on the R&D end, not the business end, and I've since left Kodak.
Most modern minilabs (be they Kodak/Noritsu, Fuji, etc. (a lot of these minilab systems are actually contracted out, but that's another discussion) use digital subsystems with wet front and back ends where appropriate.
Digital images are imported directly through obvious means - bits go in the hole. Silver halide negatives are developed and then scanned and stored locally on the minilab. The digital images are then adjusted through a combination of automated improvements (such as Kodak PerfectTouch) and manual tweaking, depending on the shop you go to and the level of service they offer. Automated only = cheaper. Current systems then use rastered or scanned LEDs in an RGB configuration (Some may also use lasers, but all the ones I've seen were LEDs - they're cheap) to expose the photographic paper, which is developed using traditional wet processes. In the past, the first digital Kodak minilabs used little 6" CRTs with 4000 lines of resolution (made in New Jersey, I think) to project the images onto the paper. There was talk of stepping that up to 6000 lines, but I don't know if that ever happened. I could be a little off on those numbers - I'm pulling them from memory from years ago. But they certainly ended the NTSC/PAL resolution debate:-) - HD is for wimps. These systems were replaced by the LED systems.
Note that wholesale photofinishing labs still use traditional optics - for all the grooviness of digital systems, it's hard to beat a massive spinning system of traditional optics churning out thousands of prints an hour (we're talking on the scale of a print a second - fast!)
Most walk-up kiosks use thermal/dye sublimation printing systems, which have excellent print quality and durability, though they're expensive. A mylar donor ribbon coated with CMYK+finisher dyes is heated by a pagewidth linear array of diodes at ~300dpi and pressed against the receiver paper. A separate pass is made for each color. I'm not aware of any minilabs that use dye dub printers because of the speed limitations.
Inkjet technology is starting to penetrate the kiosk market, but there's a lot of maturing to still take place.
Your immediate observations are correct: silver halide photographic paper is more durable and usually glossier, which most consumers associate with quality. Since there are a wide range of inks available on the market (every printer manufacturer has many types of inks), paper manufacturers have and optimization problem in balancing quality/durability/color reproduction/light fastness.
As for the quality between vendors, there certainly are differences - though how much of that is tied to the digital algorithms and how much is tied to the processing hardware these days I'm not sure. I suspect it's much more the former. Your best bet is to find a local shop with well-trained staff that actually knows how to use the minilab, rather than the summer job teenager who doodled pictures of Bevis and Butthead (or Spongebob, or Thundercats, or whatever the kids are into these days) during their training class.
At this stage, throughput is the big technical bottleneck remaining for inkjet technologies to penetrate the kiosk and minilab markets. Ecologically and economically it's a 'no brainer', so all the major players are trying to produce solutions. Kiosks will probably be the first to make the transition. Brother, Sony, and another company that escapes me at the moment (in the UK?) have publicly demonstrated pagewide technologies, and I think Xerox had one operating in their labs before they shut down the inkjet effort a few years back. Some of these demos have been around for years. Someone from the inside needs to write a book about the Kodak-HP joint venture ("Phogenix") in making an inkjet minlab system - but it's probably still a little early, since the technologies the two companies were bringing to the table for the joint venture will appear in future products of their own. There are some entertaining stories involved - classic corporate America.
The tax rate for the options is probably going to roll in at 15% - certainly a lower tax rate than had it been 'earned income' (salary), but much more than zero. These rates were lowered in the 2003 tax revision - they had been 20% (there's a lower tax bracket as well, but I don't think it applies in this situation:-) ). You only pay social security on the first $90k of earned income - so that tax relief in this case is pretty negligible (compared to the 15% of some huge number). Of course, this assumes they sell any shares - most people in this position sit on a lot of the wealth in paper form, so there's a negligible cash flow anyway. At some point Page and Brin will diversify, but we don't know what their personal situations are like. Furthermore, as founders, they may well have a much more complicated tax role than simply investors. This can get complex very quickly - but that doesn't intimidate the IRS. If you've thought of the loophole, the feds have figured out how to get a piece of the pie. It's not _that_ easy!
In the vein of not wanting my physical usage to change, I'm trying out Vonage and expect to switch over soon and ditch the phone company. This will translate to $20/month savings for our household.
Sound quality is excellent (same as landline, it sounds to me), and none of my friends or family notice the difference (I ask each time I call). I did have to tweak my Linksys router, remapping a couple of ports to get consistent connections.
Vonage is one of the few VoIP carriers who tries to handle 911 - it's not identical, but comes close - you roll back 911 service like it was five years ago, or no change depending in how far behind your municipality is in upgrading their systems:-).
The Skype thing has no appeal to me - I don't want all the reliability of my PC tied into my phone.
This is an old problem, IT is just a new context
on
Managing Einsteins
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Speaking as someone who's traveled the geek-to-management chain (by accident rather than desire), I disagree with the 'only book' sentiment. I work in an industrial research community and manage a small (dozen or so) team of researchers - some of whom certainly are more qualified to be dubbed Einsteins than your typical programmer (no offense!).
Intellectual egos have long been extant - look at Rutherford. I'd be doomed if I worked anywhere near him! We have tons of experienced, genuinely brilliant PhDs in our organization, and they range from the pleasant humble mannerism of Einstein to the brash obnoxiousness of Rutherford. Yet as a member of the management community, I need to help drive all these folks towards common goals while sharing the same resources and space. Sure it's not easy, but I think the right route to address this for IT folks is similar to what we do in science. Waving my magic wand, I'd make these recommendations for what most IT related workplaces need to learn:
1) Management and promotions are two different things. 2) Managers DON'T have to make more than those they manage. 3) You cannot and should not treat everyone 'equally'. 4) There are others, but I'm lazy
To be more verbose (okay, really verbose): 1) Management and promotions are two different things.
We have three career tracks in our R&D community - Technical, Project management, and Leadership (an aside - being a leader and being a manager are two very different things - there's overlap but not anywhere near as much as most companies treat the roles and everyone uses the words interchangeably - but we shouldn't. I feel my own company falls short on this one). -Technical is just that - at the top of the game, you're one of the world's authorities on Boise-Einstein-Pies, and get both recognized (and compensated) as such. You're encouraged to educate yourself to stay that way. -If you move up the project management chain, you may coordinate projects across divisions involving dozens if not hundreds of people to pull a program together, basically exercising responsibility with no direct authority over the managers - this involves a lot of leadership skill. -Finally, the 'leadership' track is the classic managerial path that leads towards the corporate management food chain and business practices. Note that this take you OUT of that techie/science chain if you go far enough up. Setting aside the discussion of overcompensated CEOs, each of these paths can bring both strong job satisfaction in the role and financial recognition, INDEPENDANT of the actual managerial structure. 2) Managers DON'T have to make more than those they manage - I certainly don't make more than some of the folks on my crew, and I shouldn't. They're more skilled technically, they have much more experience, and they have far more education. A lot of companies seem to have some problem with this, and that really prevents them from focusing on the right skillsets for a given job. 3) In our litigious society we're encouraged to apply the same rigid standard to everyone - unless they fall into a large collection of legal categories. As a result, it takes a little more courage to publicly say 'sure, you can always have Friday afternoons off with comp time' without offering it to everyone. Or giving very different pay raises to people based on the work that they've done, and then explaining to someone why they've gotten a below average raise. Some people can be very self sufficient, and others need a great deal of guidance. This means different people need different tool (one needs a PDA while the other needs some 3x5 cards and a crayon (ala CoyboyNeal)). Companies need to foster an environment where petty bickering (usually through envy or jealousy) isn't an issue. In the above example, if someone's upset because someone has a PDA, it's usually not because they want a PDA, it's because they want some form of recognition or visible acknowledgement for themselves - comes back to that whole ego thing. If they're just petty, you may want them to find a job elsewhere.
Enough! If you're still reading, then I'll make a suggestion. I'd look at Buckingham and Coffman's books from the Gallup organization (First, Break all the Rules and Now, Discover your Strengths) if you're interested in tech management yourself, or want to help your PHB (euthanasia is usually out). The books are chock full of interesting data, which the authors use to derive their philosophy from. Sure some of the stuff they say is obvious - but I think it's the first decent explanation of why TQM usually fails other than 'management screwed it up'. TQM is a nice idea, but the practice is based on some assumptions about organizations that are often false. There are lots of good examples that apply to every environment whether you're looking for excellent people in a dynamic (read: chaotic) environment or mediocre people in a rigid bureaucracy. Even if you don't agree with everything they suggest, it's good brain food.
Slashdot Mirror
I have encountered the crapware Comast nightmare as well, but discovered there's an easy solution. Call Comcast, and tell them that you had it all installed and it was working, but now has suddenly stopped since you moved your computer room or something. They may need the MAC address off the cable modem, but they'll reset whatever they need to at their end and you can just connect using DHCP. I've done this a couple of times, and it's worked fine.
For those who've had no problems, your local Comcast setup might be different. Around here (New Hampshire), when you just try to connect Comcast gives you a rewarding web page that says you need to install their software before you can connect, and blocks all other traffic.
IEEE Spectrum had an article about this last year ( http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069 ); the authors actually sampled in-flight RF data and reviewed some related publications. They also discussed the current reporting methods for HED interference and discussed some of the reports. Bottom line for those that don't want to read the whole article: some cell phones and other devices emit innocuous signals that pose no significant danger, while _other_ cell phones and devices pose significant risks of interfering with avionic electronics, depending on the frequencies they use. This inconsistency alone is a problem. "Sure, you can use your AT&T phone, ma'am. I'm sorry sir, you have to turn your Sprint phone off or we're all going to die". The FCC and FAA do not work with each other (as a rule of thumb), so both the technical and regulatory issues can conflict with one another.
It's a good article for the layperson, I'd encourage reading it.
Since my wife the radiologist has the day off today, I swiveled my chair around and asked her. So here's a bullet list of relevant points combining my editorializing with her systems knowledge:
-Most medical stuff is regulated at a state level (in the US, anyway), not at a federal level, so exercise caution when saying 'it's the law'.
-Radiology films are 11"x17", so you would need a big (and expensive - my wife has a couple thousand old films from her research we'd like to digitize, so I've shopped) scanner to do this.
-Contrary to popular belief, you do not own your medical records; the physician who generated them does. You do, however, have the right to access them and the request a copy. You may be required to pay a fee for the copy, but it's usually something reasonable (e.g. $10). I realize this may raise a ruckus - this isn't flame bait or an ethical statement, it's a statement about the way it is. Deal with it.
-You may request a copy of your films to keep, rather than borrow. Again, there may be a fee.
-Many practices now use PACS systems to handle the images, and can burn a CD of the data that can be read by a radiologist; many even come with the reading software on the CD. As another poster pointed out, the image data will in all likelihood conform to the DICOM standard http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/dicom.html , and can be shared with your other physicians readily. Because the CD systems are relatively new, many hospitals and imaging centers haven't yet implemented a policy of how to charge for them - so you may be able to get it for free. Or not.
-So, in a nutshell: If you are, for whatever reason, not willing to ask your physician to share the information (which is the best route - physicians are our partners in care, not our adversaries), then request a copy that you own; don't borrow. Present this data to the physician you are seeking a second opinion from. Good luck, and I hope he can treat the arthritis!
I think CVS is still exclusively an EK house, so that's probably a thermal printer. They look a lot like an inkjet printer until you pick it up - they're heavy! If you listen to it print, you can tell - since the thermal printer makes 4 passes (I goofed BTW - I think all the printers are CMY+finish coat, no K), you should hear four discrete whines, separated the the sound of the paper being pulled back into the printer. An 8x10 print will take 30-60 seconds, depending on the model of the printer they have in there.
That said, there are other companies putting inkjet kiosks into play now, and HP is certainly a player in the field. You can probably find out just by looking at the branding of the kiosk and a little web homework who's printer is inside.
My exposure to these technologies was on the R&D end, not the business end, and I've since left Kodak.
:-) - HD is for wimps. These systems were replaced by the LED systems.
Most modern minilabs (be they Kodak/Noritsu, Fuji, etc. (a lot of these minilab systems are actually contracted out, but that's another discussion) use digital subsystems with wet front and back ends where appropriate.
Digital images are imported directly through obvious means - bits go in the hole. Silver halide negatives are developed and then scanned and stored locally on the minilab. The digital images are then adjusted through a combination of automated improvements (such as Kodak PerfectTouch) and manual tweaking, depending on the shop you go to and the level of service they offer. Automated only = cheaper. Current systems then use rastered or scanned LEDs in an RGB configuration (Some may also use lasers, but all the ones I've seen were LEDs - they're cheap) to expose the photographic paper, which is developed using traditional wet processes.
In the past, the first digital Kodak minilabs used little 6" CRTs with 4000 lines of resolution (made in New Jersey, I think) to project the images onto the paper. There was talk of stepping that up to 6000 lines, but I don't know if that ever happened. I could be a little off on those numbers - I'm pulling them from memory from years ago. But they certainly ended the NTSC/PAL resolution debate
Note that wholesale photofinishing labs still use traditional optics - for all the grooviness of digital systems, it's hard to beat a massive spinning system of traditional optics churning out thousands of prints an hour (we're talking on the scale of a print a second - fast!)
Most walk-up kiosks use thermal/dye sublimation printing systems, which have excellent print quality and durability, though they're expensive. A mylar donor ribbon coated with CMYK+finisher dyes is heated by a pagewidth linear array of diodes at ~300dpi and pressed against the receiver paper. A separate pass is made for each color. I'm not aware of any minilabs that use dye dub printers because of the speed limitations.
Inkjet technology is starting to penetrate the kiosk market, but there's a lot of maturing to still take place.
Your immediate observations are correct: silver halide photographic paper is more durable and usually glossier, which most consumers associate with quality. Since there are a wide range of inks available on the market (every printer manufacturer has many types of inks), paper manufacturers have and optimization problem in balancing quality/durability/color reproduction/light fastness.
As for the quality between vendors, there certainly are differences - though how much of that is tied to the digital algorithms and how much is tied to the processing hardware these days I'm not sure. I suspect it's much more the former. Your best bet is to find a local shop with well-trained staff that actually knows how to use the minilab, rather than the summer job teenager who doodled pictures of Bevis and Butthead (or Spongebob, or Thundercats, or whatever the kids are into these days) during their training class.
At this stage, throughput is the big technical bottleneck remaining for inkjet technologies to penetrate the kiosk and minilab markets. Ecologically and economically it's a 'no brainer', so all the major players are trying to produce solutions. Kiosks will probably be the first to make the transition. Brother, Sony, and another company that escapes me at the moment (in the UK?) have publicly demonstrated pagewide technologies, and I think Xerox had one operating in their labs before they shut down the inkjet effort a few years back. Some of these demos have been around for years. Someone from the inside needs to write a book about the Kodak-HP joint venture ("Phogenix") in making an inkjet minlab system - but it's probably still a little early, since the technologies the two companies were bringing to the table for the joint venture will appear in future products of their own. There are some entertaining stories involved - classic corporate America.
The tax rate for the options is probably going to roll in at 15% - certainly a lower tax rate than had it been 'earned income' (salary), but much more than zero. These rates were lowered in the 2003 tax revision - they had been 20% (there's a lower tax bracket as well, but I don't think it applies in this situation :-) ).
You only pay social security on the first $90k of earned income - so that tax relief in this case is pretty negligible (compared to the 15% of some huge number).
Of course, this assumes they sell any shares - most people in this position sit on a lot of the wealth in paper form, so there's a negligible cash flow anyway. At some point Page and Brin will diversify, but we don't know what their personal situations are like.
Furthermore, as founders, they may well have a much more complicated tax role than simply investors. This can get complex very quickly - but that doesn't intimidate the IRS.
If you've thought of the loophole, the feds have figured out how to get a piece of the pie. It's not _that_ easy!
In the vein of not wanting my physical usage to change, I'm trying out Vonage and expect to switch over soon and ditch the phone company. This will translate to $20/month savings for our household. :-).
Sound quality is excellent (same as landline, it sounds to me), and none of my friends or family notice the difference (I ask each time I call). I did have to tweak my Linksys router, remapping a couple of ports to get consistent connections.
Vonage is one of the few VoIP carriers who tries to handle 911 - it's not identical, but comes close - you roll back 911 service like it was five years ago, or no change depending in how far behind your municipality is in upgrading their systems
The Skype thing has no appeal to me - I don't want all the reliability of my PC tied into my phone.
Speaking as someone who's traveled the geek-to-management chain (by accident rather than desire), I disagree with the 'only book' sentiment. I work in an industrial research community and manage a small (dozen or so) team of researchers - some of whom certainly are more qualified to be dubbed Einsteins than your typical programmer (no offense!).
Intellectual egos have long been extant - look at Rutherford. I'd be doomed if I worked anywhere near him! We have tons of experienced, genuinely brilliant PhDs in our organization, and they range from the pleasant humble mannerism of Einstein to the brash obnoxiousness of Rutherford. Yet as a member of the management community, I need to help drive all these folks towards common goals while sharing the same resources and space. Sure it's not easy, but I think the right route to address this for IT folks is similar to what we do in science. Waving my magic wand, I'd make these recommendations for what most IT related workplaces need to learn:
1) Management and promotions are two different things.
2) Managers DON'T have to make more than those they manage.
3) You cannot and should not treat everyone 'equally'.
4) There are others, but I'm lazy
To be more verbose (okay, really verbose):
1) Management and promotions are two different things.
We have three career tracks in our R&D community - Technical, Project management, and Leadership (an aside - being a leader and being a manager are two very different things - there's overlap but not anywhere near as much as most companies treat the roles and everyone uses the words interchangeably - but we shouldn't. I feel my own company falls short on this one).
-Technical is just that - at the top of the game, you're one of the world's authorities on Boise-Einstein-Pies, and get both recognized (and compensated) as such. You're encouraged to educate yourself to stay that way.
-If you move up the project management chain, you may coordinate projects across divisions involving dozens if not hundreds of people to pull a program together, basically exercising responsibility with no direct authority over the managers - this involves a lot of leadership skill.
-Finally, the 'leadership' track is the classic managerial path that leads towards the corporate management food chain and business practices. Note that this take you OUT of that techie/science chain if you go far enough up. Setting aside the discussion of overcompensated CEOs, each of these paths can bring both strong job satisfaction in the role and financial recognition, INDEPENDANT of the actual managerial structure.
2) Managers DON'T have to make more than those they manage - I certainly don't make more than some of the folks on my crew, and I shouldn't. They're more skilled technically, they have much more experience, and they have far more education. A lot of companies seem to have some problem with this, and that really prevents them from focusing on the right skillsets for a given job.
3) In our litigious society we're encouraged to apply the same rigid standard to everyone - unless they fall into a large collection of legal categories. As a result, it takes a little more courage to publicly say 'sure, you can always have Friday afternoons off with comp time' without offering it to everyone. Or giving very different pay raises to people based on the work that they've done, and then explaining to someone why they've gotten a below average raise. Some people can be very self sufficient, and others need a great deal of guidance. This means different people need different tool (one needs a PDA while the other needs some 3x5 cards and a crayon (ala CoyboyNeal)). Companies need to foster an environment where petty bickering (usually through envy or jealousy) isn't an issue. In the above example, if someone's upset because someone has a PDA, it's usually not because they want a PDA, it's because they want some form of recognition or visible acknowledgement for themselves - comes back to that whole ego thing. If they're just petty, you may want them to find a job elsewhere.
Enough! If you're still reading, then I'll make a suggestion. I'd look at Buckingham and Coffman's books from the Gallup organization (First, Break all the Rules and Now, Discover your Strengths) if you're interested in tech management yourself, or want to help your PHB (euthanasia is usually out). The books are chock full of interesting data, which the authors use to derive their philosophy from. Sure some of the stuff they say is obvious - but I think it's the first decent explanation of why TQM usually fails other than 'management screwed it up'. TQM is a nice idea, but the practice is based on some assumptions about organizations that are often false. There are lots of good examples that apply to every environment whether you're looking for excellent people in a dynamic (read: chaotic) environment or mediocre people in a rigid bureaucracy. Even if you don't agree with everything they suggest, it's good brain food.