A group of fish of the same species are called fish. Two or more species of fish are called 'fishes'.
For example, a number of Eastern Australian Salmon swimming together can be called a school of fish. But if one Tarwhine starts swimming with the Eastern Australian Salmon they are called fishes.
First, you are correct. If you get more chips per wafer, you can make more chips. Since the time to process 1 wafer remains consant. However, there is also more going on.
The second thing to worry about is the cost. If it costs (making up numbers) $100 to process a wafer and you get 10 chips, it is $10 to manufacture 1 chip. If you get 20 chips from the wafer, then it only costs $5 to manufacture 1 chip.
The third item is quality control. If there are any flaws in the wafer, the chip that is created over that flaw can not be used. So that chip gets thrown out. If we can get more chips from a single wafer, our percentage yield increases as well. Imagine that there is 1 flaw per wafer. If we only get 1 chip per wafer our actual yield is 0%. This would be very bad. Now imagine we get 2 chips per wafer. While it is possible that the flaw would affect both chips, most likely it will only affect 1, giving a yield of 50%. If you get 3 chips, your yield is 66%. This yield really hits the bottom line.
If you are losing 2-3 chips per wafer from flaws, then any increase in the number of chips is going to increase your yield percentage. If you call it a 25% increase in chips on a wafer, due to the 65nm instead of 90nm process, the percentage of chips lost to flaws will also go down and you just made more money.
Finder doesn't need a pause button. The system builds an index of your files and then reads from that index.
When you start your computer for the first time, it takes a bit of time to build the index. After that it updates it on the fly, but there is essentially no CPU overhead - think about how long it takes to "Save as" a file and how long it takes to read that filename and add it to an index. The longest search I've done took about 5 seconds to complete and included the file I was looking for and the email where someone sent me the file.
As I alluded to earlier, it doesn't just index files. It indexes emails, calendar entries and other things. It is so much better than Windows search that there is, literally, no comparison. Sort of like Googling for a webpage instead of crawling the web yourself.
Performance - encrypting everything (cache, program files and so on) is a serious hit on performance, now you can say that hardware/performance it is not a problem. But don't say it to me when I see brand new laptop booting long time since you can login and launching MS Office in *few* seconds.
Performance doesn't have to be bad. A lot depends on the algorithm you use. Also, if you push the work to a trusted module, (which could reside in the hard drive), then you won't really lose time at all. Triple-DES is still secure, even if it has been superseded by AES. DES is incredibly fast in hardware. You just need to load the key into the hardware which is trivial.
Anyway why encrypt everything when it is the data (and not all of it) that you want to encrypt?
You can never be sure where applications are storing temp files or other information.
Hassle - I mean when it is an option to just tick "encrypt my harddrive" checkbox it is paradoxically way to easy. You can imagine every clueless marketing staff member just ticking it to encrypt their worthless data. It is good that hard encryption is bit "hard" (like you need to provide a password and a key and have a clue what is going on) so people will use it only when they need it, so they will probably remember their passwords.
It is far better from a security standpoint to encrypt non-essential information than it is to not encrypt important information. Also, security systems are supposed to be simple. Far too many systems were made overly complex and resulted in problems later on.
I don't think that FDE is stupid. I think it is an excellent idea - probably the best (and simplest) way to increase the privacy of our information. Yes, it means there is another set of passwords to manage but you could easily use an encryption system that has a "master" key that can be set once. So each company could set a master password for the drive and get at the data even if the user forgets their password. Once done, however, there is no risk from a stolen laptop, second-hand hardware or any other problems that have appeared on/. over the last few months.
If they laced the drink with methamphetamine wouldn't it jack up the metabolism and cause more calories to be burned than normal?
I mean, if I drank a Diet Coke that had some meth in it, wouldn't that result in a calorie burning drink?
If so, then couldn't they use other, less addictive, less harmful chemicals for a reduced effect? It seems like there could be a ton of chemicals/drugs that would have this effect. Maybe it only results in an extra loss of 10 calories; but those 10 calories would end up as a pound of fat gone over a year. (Assuming 1 drink a day.)
Re:Just one question:
on
The eBook, Mark 2
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Although I think that's a little unbelievable.
You didn't RTFA.
If you had, you would find out it only consumes power when you have to redraw a page.
You would also have discovered that there is a prototype that has been displaying the same page for 3 years.
Sure, batteries slowly leak power. However, have you noticed that watch batteries can last for years - even with a constant power drain? As long as you don't need to provide huge bursts of energy, like those needed by a digital camera, you can design the battery to be more efficient in the long term.
True. However, it should still have some effect. Since the AP has gone to polling, it will take a longer period of time for the "bad" client to receive a packet and send an ACK (it has to wait its turn in the queue). This will cause the AP to start buffering packets for the client, but it will eventually start dropping packets. Once packets start to drop, congestion control should kick in and start throttling the traffic back.
As long as the AP only allows each client the opportunity to send a single ACK each, (or several ACKs each), even the incoming bandwidth should be shared more evenly. The downside is that it will degrade performance for everyone since even idle stations have to be polled to see if they have traffic - so a large number of people on a single AP will reduce performance greatly - even if only one client is active.
I don't think it is a great solution - but it is a solution.
Another solution would be placing a machine between the AP and the ISP to traffic shape. If someone is abusing the bandwidth - start dropping their packets - congestion control should handle the rest.
You missed the point that it is identical software AND hardware.
Sure, there are more installs of Windows XP, but they aren't all running on the exact same hardware. Same goes for SymbianOS.
Also, these laptop don't assume that someone is attached to a high-speed network where they can download patches every few weeks. If someone hacks your phone, or a vulnerability in Windows is found, they push a patch out - OLPC wants these to be secure from day 1. (Or at least as secure as possible.)
I'm not sure if this applies, but is there a way to change to Point Coordination Functionality (PCF) instead of Distributes Coordination Functionality (DCF)? PCF means the AP will "ask" each connected system if they have something to transmit. They don't just send it out and hope there aren't any collisions like in DCF. If it was set up in a round-robin style, you would get your x% of the bandwidth - as long as you had something to send.
Don't know what settings would have to be changed on the AP or client system. (Or if they even have that built into their management console.)
Don't worry. I tried out IE7 and the interface has changed to the point of being almost unusable - nothing like before and things in non-intuitive places. I hated it, and everyone I showed it to hated it. Firefox should push their interface the same day IE7 is released.
Perform a media blitz - print, web, TV and have it read:
Did your browser change today? Try Firefox - better than Internet Explorer, and you already know how to use it. Where do you want to browse today?
I know what happens when developers are allowed to have an unshackled dev box - they spend hours or days trying to get it exactly how they want it. Then, every few weeks they try a few things to tweak the performance or interface using up a few more hours.
I've seen this happen many times in many different places, (but it is still anecdotal evidence), so I think this is fairly wide-spread.
My recomendation is to get 3-4 different footprints for the developers which include all the toys they might want - like vi AND emacs. This way they get some control over their environment, but they don't get sidetracked into "perfecting" it. It also eliminates the need to maintain a second LAN - which can be a royal pain. Someone is going to do something wrong and their box will get hacked. Developers aren't administrators. They may be similar in many ways, and some people may multi-task the two positions, but don't confuse the two.
If you are looking for the best/craziest/most efficient data structures out there then you need to go through some of the computer science journals. It can be a royal pain to crawl through them looking for what you want, but that's where you will find all the "advanced" data structures. They also provide all of the information on how to use them, behavior, best uses and performance information on those structures, (including proofs if you care).
If you are just looking to refresh your memory, or learn a few more data structures, then the web is a good place to start. Just make sure to copy/save/take notes on what you find so you don't have to search when you need that cool data structure you read about 2 months ago that gave you O(1) performance in your situation. Reference books are also good, but most cover the same 80% so after 1 or 2 books you are spending a lot for just a few new pages.
I think this is a great thing. While it is less expensive to download free alternatives from the Internet, there are a lot of people who don't trust that method, or don't have the bandwidth to support it. Anything that gets a different name out there is good for competition, which is good for the customer. I think it would have been better to have rolled it out in August - just in time for back-to-school shopping. You could pick up notebooks, pencils, crayons and an office suite for your kids.
Another big plus is the name recognition. Even if products are identical except for the brand name attached, people will buy the name brand. There is also a lot of power in the store's generic brand since it becomes a known brand - even if it is for everything from toothpaste to pasta to paper towels. This should address the fear of the unknown - (read software that doesn't work and is crap) since there is a known name AND a physical location to back it up.
While I doubt this will cause Microsoft any serious worries, I think it will still be a decent venture for Tesco. Even better would be if they brand open-source software directly. Need an OS? TescoBSD. Need to do some image manipulation? TescoGIMP. The cost could be minimal since it would only have to cover the media and the cost of some shelf space - so $5 or less. Or maybe they could charge more (since a lot of people don't trust "cheap" products) with half of the profits feeding back into the open-source community.
However, I don't think I am "denser than lead" for my comment. Cost is the factor that decides whether this can be deployed on a large scale or not. There isn't much point in getting excited over this technology if there is no way to make it cost effective over current tecniques in the next few years. If it isn't anywhere near cost effective, then it is interesting, like a car that can get 1000 miles to the gallon, but can only go 20 miles an hour. However, if it there is only a modest increase in cost, then it is very interesting and relevant - like a tecnhinque allowing cars to get 100 miles per gallon that can be used in the average car.
The point you are missing is I am wondering if this is a nice record, but impractical; or if it is an important breakthrough that I need to be concerned about right now.
I'd like to know what the cost of the required equipment is. We know that hardware has a premium for the newest and fastest and it would be interesting to see what the premium is in this case. Maybe it would be cheaper to run 14 1 Tbps links instead of a single 14 Tbps link. Sure, if I already have the fiber in place, then using it for higher speed would be the way to go. However, if I am in a position where I am about to lay fiber anyway, I don't really care about those costs since I will be paying them anyway.
It's the rest of the place that can make it good or bad. One big problem with most cube farms is that the walls are close to the same bland color as the cubicles themselves. They are also all neutral colorsl which makes it a big "boring" space. I'm not recommending you paint the place yellow and blue or anything - just use some color. Plants and trees are always nice. If you have 12-foot ceilings you could get some nice "trees" that could be seen over the cubical walls to break up the monotony and there are plenty of companies that will lease them and maintain them. You can also get into "art swaps" where businesses get together and share art - every month or two you get new paintings for the walls - some change in the environment is always good. If you really like one, you can generally buy it.
Now, people need personal space when they want to get focused on something and communal space when collaborating. My advice is to give people larger cubes (10x10 or 7x14) for their personal space and encourage them to customize with pictures/posters/objects as they like. This will eat up about 4000-4500 square feet including aisles and other overhead space. Take the other 3000 square feet and make some nice communal areas that people can enjoy. Why not have a "garden" where there are a lot of trees/plants and a fountain? If you don't have fish, keeping the water clear is pretty easy. (Fish die if you mess up the chemicals.) Throw in 2 or 3 cafe tables and people can eat lunch, take a break or have small meetings. It's only a few hundred square feet and it gives a completely different feel than a regular office and allows people to clear their minds. Also, if you want to divide the area into groups or sections - don't use higher walls. First, they eliminate the advantages of having the high ceilings and they are more of the same - just higher. Use greenery or glass so you don't make the space feel smaller.
I'm not sure if you have a need for large meeting rooms or not, but they should be larger than strictly needed. There is nothing worse than being stuck in a small room with too many people that slowly heats up as the meeting progresses. Also, if you have a green area, have a glass wall in the meeting room that gives a view of it. If you need privacy you can close the blinds but people generally don't like cramped spaces and if you have something nice to look at, use it.
So don't blame bad offices on the cubicles alone - if you don't use colors or variations, everything looks bad. Try visiting a university campus and seeing how the hallways in old buildings feel. Sure, everyone has their own office, but it almost feels like a cube farm - narrow halls, no natural lighting, no variation - just door, wall, door, wall, door, water fountain, wall, door, wall.... Then visit some of the newer buildings and see what you like about them. I'm guessing it will be open areas and use of windows and greenery (or windows that look over greenery.)
Slashdot Mirror
Fishes is actually correct of you are talking about different species of fish.
From the Australian Museum Online site.
A group of fish of the same species are called fish. Two or more species of fish are called 'fishes'.
For example, a number of Eastern Australian Salmon swimming together can be called a school of fish. But if one Tarwhine starts swimming with the Eastern Australian Salmon they are called fishes.
It means more than that...
First, you are correct. If you get more chips per wafer, you can make more chips. Since the time to process 1 wafer remains consant. However, there is also more going on.
The second thing to worry about is the cost. If it costs (making up numbers) $100 to process a wafer and you get 10 chips, it is $10 to manufacture 1 chip. If you get 20 chips from the wafer, then it only costs $5 to manufacture 1 chip.
The third item is quality control. If there are any flaws in the wafer, the chip that is created over that flaw can not be used. So that chip gets thrown out. If we can get more chips from a single wafer, our percentage yield increases as well. Imagine that there is 1 flaw per wafer. If we only get 1 chip per wafer our actual yield is 0%. This would be very bad. Now imagine we get 2 chips per wafer. While it is possible that the flaw would affect both chips, most likely it will only affect 1, giving a yield of 50%. If you get 3 chips, your yield is 66%. This yield really hits the bottom line.
If you are losing 2-3 chips per wafer from flaws, then any increase in the number of chips is going to increase your yield percentage. If you call it a 25% increase in chips on a wafer, due to the 65nm instead of 90nm process, the percentage of chips lost to flaws will also go down and you just made more money.
Want to see something? Watch this!
Earth was destroyed! Film at eleven.
You insensitive clod! Expand the acronym!
I always pick the CowboyNeal option.
I didn't RTFA.
Finder doesn't need a pause button. The system builds an index of your files and then reads from that index.
When you start your computer for the first time, it takes a bit of time to build the index. After that it updates it on the fly, but there is essentially no CPU overhead - think about how long it takes to "Save as" a file and how long it takes to read that filename and add it to an index. The longest search I've done took about 5 seconds to complete and included the file I was looking for and the email where someone sent me the file.
As I alluded to earlier, it doesn't just index files. It indexes emails, calendar entries and other things. It is so much better than Windows search that there is, literally, no comparison. Sort of like Googling for a webpage instead of crawling the web yourself.
Performance - encrypting everything (cache, program files and so on) is a serious hit on performance, now you can say that hardware/performance it is not a problem. But don't say it to me when I see brand new laptop booting long time since you can login and launching MS Office in *few* seconds.
/. over the last few months.
Performance doesn't have to be bad. A lot depends on the algorithm you use. Also, if you push the work to a trusted module, (which could reside in the hard drive), then you won't really lose time at all. Triple-DES is still secure, even if it has been superseded by AES. DES is incredibly fast in hardware. You just need to load the key into the hardware which is trivial.
Anyway why encrypt everything when it is the data (and not all of it) that you want to encrypt?
You can never be sure where applications are storing temp files or other information.
Hassle - I mean when it is an option to just tick "encrypt my harddrive" checkbox it is paradoxically way to easy. You can imagine every clueless marketing staff member just ticking it to encrypt their worthless data. It is good that hard encryption is bit "hard" (like you need to provide a password and a key and have a clue what is going on) so people will use it only when they need it, so they will probably remember their passwords.
It is far better from a security standpoint to encrypt non-essential information than it is to not encrypt important information. Also, security systems are supposed to be simple. Far too many systems were made overly complex and resulted in problems later on.
I don't think that FDE is stupid. I think it is an excellent idea - probably the best (and simplest) way to increase the privacy of our information. Yes, it means there is another set of passwords to manage but you could easily use an encryption system that has a "master" key that can be set once. So each company could set a master password for the drive and get at the data even if the user forgets their password. Once done, however, there is no risk from a stolen laptop, second-hand hardware or any other problems that have appeared on
I don't get the Sci-Fi channel so I buy them off iTunes a day or two later.
Question:
If they laced the drink with methamphetamine wouldn't it jack up the metabolism and cause more calories to be burned than normal?
I mean, if I drank a Diet Coke that had some meth in it, wouldn't that result in a calorie burning drink?
If so, then couldn't they use other, less addictive, less harmful chemicals for a reduced effect? It seems like there could be a ton of chemicals/drugs that would have this effect. Maybe it only results in an extra loss of 10 calories; but those 10 calories would end up as a pound of fat gone over a year. (Assuming 1 drink a day.)
Although I think that's a little unbelievable.
You didn't RTFA.
If you had, you would find out it only consumes power when you have to redraw a page.
You would also have discovered that there is a prototype that has been displaying the same page for 3 years.
Sure, batteries slowly leak power. However, have you noticed that watch batteries can last for years - even with a constant power drain? As long as you don't need to provide huge bursts of energy, like those needed by a digital camera, you can design the battery to be more efficient in the long term.
True. However, it should still have some effect. Since the AP has gone to polling, it will take a longer period of time for the "bad" client to receive a packet and send an ACK (it has to wait its turn in the queue). This will cause the AP to start buffering packets for the client, but it will eventually start dropping packets. Once packets start to drop, congestion control should kick in and start throttling the traffic back.
As long as the AP only allows each client the opportunity to send a single ACK each, (or several ACKs each), even the incoming bandwidth should be shared more evenly. The downside is that it will degrade performance for everyone since even idle stations have to be polled to see if they have traffic - so a large number of people on a single AP will reduce performance greatly - even if only one client is active.
I don't think it is a great solution - but it is a solution.
Another solution would be placing a machine between the AP and the ISP to traffic shape. If someone is abusing the bandwidth - start dropping their packets - congestion control should handle the rest.
You missed the point that it is identical software AND hardware.
Sure, there are more installs of Windows XP, but they aren't all running on the exact same hardware. Same goes for SymbianOS.
Also, these laptop don't assume that someone is attached to a high-speed network where they can download patches every few weeks. If someone hacks your phone, or a vulnerability in Windows is found, they push a patch out - OLPC wants these to be secure from day 1. (Or at least as secure as possible.)
I'm not sure if this applies, but is there a way to change to Point Coordination Functionality (PCF) instead of Distributes Coordination Functionality (DCF)? PCF means the AP will "ask" each connected system if they have something to transmit. They don't just send it out and hope there aren't any collisions like in DCF. If it was set up in a round-robin style, you would get your x% of the bandwidth - as long as you had something to send.
Don't know what settings would have to be changed on the AP or client system. (Or if they even have that built into their management console.)
MAC Modes.
Saw this comment yesterday - thought it fit here as well.
Don't worry. I tried out IE7 and the interface has changed to the point of being almost unusable - nothing like before and things in non-intuitive places. I hated it, and everyone I showed it to hated it. Firefox should push their interface the same day IE7 is released.
Perform a media blitz - print, web, TV and have it read:
Did your browser change today? Try Firefox - better than Internet Explorer, and you already know how to use it. Where do you want to browse today?
I don't buy it.
I know what happens when developers are allowed to have an unshackled dev box - they spend hours or days trying to get it exactly how they want it. Then, every few weeks they try a few things to tweak the performance or interface using up a few more hours.
I've seen this happen many times in many different places, (but it is still anecdotal evidence), so I think this is fairly wide-spread.
My recomendation is to get 3-4 different footprints for the developers which include all the toys they might want - like vi AND emacs. This way they get some control over their environment, but they don't get sidetracked into "perfecting" it. It also eliminates the need to maintain a second LAN - which can be a royal pain. Someone is going to do something wrong and their box will get hacked. Developers aren't administrators. They may be similar in many ways, and some people may multi-task the two positions, but don't confuse the two.
If you are looking for the best/craziest/most efficient data structures out there then you need to go through some of the computer science journals. It can be a royal pain to crawl through them looking for what you want, but that's where you will find all the "advanced" data structures. They also provide all of the information on how to use them, behavior, best uses and performance information on those structures, (including proofs if you care).
If you are just looking to refresh your memory, or learn a few more data structures, then the web is a good place to start. Just make sure to copy/save/take notes on what you find so you don't have to search when you need that cool data structure you read about 2 months ago that gave you O(1) performance in your situation. Reference books are also good, but most cover the same 80% so after 1 or 2 books you are spending a lot for just a few new pages.
Am I crazy, or did they get the math wrong in the article?
The acceleration equation for circular motion is: a = v^2 / r
We are given:
Velocity: 10 kilometers/s
Width of ring = 2 kilometers, so radius = 1 kilometer
So:
v = 10,000 m/s
r = 1,000 m
a = (10,000 m/s * 10,000 m/s) / (1,000 meters) = 100,000 m/s^2
The acceleration due to gravity is about 10 m/s^2
This gives: (100,000 m/s^2) / (10 m/s^2) = 10,000 g
So it seems that their 2,000 g is way off. Even if we use 2 km for the radius it is still 5,000 g.
I think this is a great thing. While it is less expensive to download free alternatives from the Internet, there are a lot of people who don't trust that method, or don't have the bandwidth to support it. Anything that gets a different name out there is good for competition, which is good for the customer. I think it would have been better to have rolled it out in August - just in time for back-to-school shopping. You could pick up notebooks, pencils, crayons and an office suite for your kids.
Another big plus is the name recognition. Even if products are identical except for the brand name attached, people will buy the name brand. There is also a lot of power in the store's generic brand since it becomes a known brand - even if it is for everything from toothpaste to pasta to paper towels. This should address the fear of the unknown - (read software that doesn't work and is crap) since there is a known name AND a physical location to back it up.
While I doubt this will cause Microsoft any serious worries, I think it will still be a decent venture for Tesco. Even better would be if they brand open-source software directly. Need an OS? TescoBSD. Need to do some image manipulation? TescoGIMP. The cost could be minimal since it would only have to cover the media and the cost of some shelf space - so $5 or less. Or maybe they could charge more (since a lot of people don't trust "cheap" products) with half of the profits feeding back into the open-source community.
Thank you for the insult.
However, I don't think I am "denser than lead" for my comment. Cost is the factor that decides whether this can be deployed on a large scale or not. There isn't much point in getting excited over this technology if there is no way to make it cost effective over current tecniques in the next few years. If it isn't anywhere near cost effective, then it is interesting, like a car that can get 1000 miles to the gallon, but can only go 20 miles an hour. However, if it there is only a modest increase in cost, then it is very interesting and relevant - like a tecnhinque allowing cars to get 100 miles per gallon that can be used in the average car.
The point you are missing is I am wondering if this is a nice record, but impractical; or if it is an important breakthrough that I need to be concerned about right now.
Caesar's Duck P-speak? We could abbreviate that to Caesar's Duck, or use Quack-keying as slang.
I'd like to know what the cost of the required equipment is. We know that hardware has a premium for the newest and fastest and it would be interesting to see what the premium is in this case. Maybe it would be cheaper to run 14 1 Tbps links instead of a single 14 Tbps link. Sure, if I already have the fiber in place, then using it for higher speed would be the way to go. However, if I am in a position where I am about to lay fiber anyway, I don't really care about those costs since I will be paying them anyway.
It's the rest of the place that can make it good or bad. One big problem with most cube farms is that the walls are close to the same bland color as the cubicles themselves. They are also all neutral colorsl which makes it a big "boring" space. I'm not recommending you paint the place yellow and blue or anything - just use some color. Plants and trees are always nice. If you have 12-foot ceilings you could get some nice "trees" that could be seen over the cubical walls to break up the monotony and there are plenty of companies that will lease them and maintain them. You can also get into "art swaps" where businesses get together and share art - every month or two you get new paintings for the walls - some change in the environment is always good. If you really like one, you can generally buy it.
Now, people need personal space when they want to get focused on something and communal space when collaborating. My advice is to give people larger cubes (10x10 or 7x14) for their personal space and encourage them to customize with pictures/posters/objects as they like. This will eat up about 4000-4500 square feet including aisles and other overhead space. Take the other 3000 square feet and make some nice communal areas that people can enjoy. Why not have a "garden" where there are a lot of trees/plants and a fountain? If you don't have fish, keeping the water clear is pretty easy. (Fish die if you mess up the chemicals.) Throw in 2 or 3 cafe tables and people can eat lunch, take a break or have small meetings. It's only a few hundred square feet and it gives a completely different feel than a regular office and allows people to clear their minds. Also, if you want to divide the area into groups or sections - don't use higher walls. First, they eliminate the advantages of having the high ceilings and they are more of the same - just higher. Use greenery or glass so you don't make the space feel smaller.
I'm not sure if you have a need for large meeting rooms or not, but they should be larger than strictly needed. There is nothing worse than being stuck in a small room with too many people that slowly heats up as the meeting progresses. Also, if you have a green area, have a glass wall in the meeting room that gives a view of it. If you need privacy you can close the blinds but people generally don't like cramped spaces and if you have something nice to look at, use it.
So don't blame bad offices on the cubicles alone - if you don't use colors or variations, everything looks bad. Try visiting a university campus and seeing how the hallways in old buildings feel. Sure, everyone has their own office, but it almost feels like a cube farm - narrow halls, no natural lighting, no variation - just door, wall, door, wall, door, water fountain, wall, door, wall.... Then visit some of the newer buildings and see what you like about them. I'm guessing it will be open areas and use of windows and greenery (or windows that look over greenery.)