Actually there are a few that can. Our office network is piggybacked on our mid-size data center, which has enough upstream link capacity that the 100Mbit/s desktop LAN is the slow bit. Downloading Apple software updates (Akamai), various Linux ISOs from mirrors (for example) we get several MByte/s throughput onto the desktop. Never *quite* maxing out that 100Mbit/s portion, but above 50Mbit/s.
That's in San Francisco, so YMMV, but there are sites out there that can feed at high rates and don't seem to throttle too much.
The problem with sending animals is that you have to send a functioning biosphere along with whatever creature you send into space. That's a big technical challenge, and for people it's a tradeoff between discomfort and the smartness of the machines against the smartness of the people. For animals, assume that they can't really contribute anything to the (meta) running of the biosphere. If you give them grass they can crap on it and all, but they won't be picking up a wrench to fix a broken water recycling plant or irrigation system. Also, for any significant duration your're talking about an environment where the significant input is energy. No "food enough for three days" but a system that'll continue to provide as long as it receives energy.
I'm guessing that it's more complex to set up an animal-supporting artificial biosphere in space than one to support humans.
I have a question that I've never really understood the answer to: why is creationism as a belief incompatible with science (including evolution)? Whatever science comes up with, one can always back out and say that the system as a whole was created by an omnipotent external creator. So what I don't get terribly well is why all the fuss about evolution in the first place, unless it's only dogma that's important?
(For me anyway, it's the notion that dogma, existing power structures and beliefs which are important -- rather than any serious notion of consistent broader philosophy -- that's scary.)
"I initially had reservations about safety, but Okarma emphasized that if the animal data is not good, the study will not move forward until problems are addressed."
Don't believe that. Not because it's stem cells, not because Tom Okarma's a bad person (I have no idea about his character), but because that's not an independent, verifiable standard. Be happy that bad things should be avoided because some procedure is being followed and verified, not because you have a good feeling about a person. You want a process that deals with the honest folk and the dishonest folk just the same way, and works for both. Trust breaks the day you have a dishonest person on the other side of the table.
Still, I guess this is offtopic. It's an interesting article.
Actually for US companies, due to compliance with Sarbanes Oxley and Payment Card Industry DSS standards, the problems the article talks about -- unchanging inter- and intra-application credentials -- are (getting) less of an issue.
SOx is horribly aspecific, and boils down to "you'd better be doing the right thing". The irony of audit company failings leading to an audit company boom aside, that means auditors are scared, pedantic and detailed. In the case of our auditors that includes frequent, documented changes to passwords for both human and machine users, including all applications and components thereof. It's been a pain to implement because people have been used to systems working as TFA states. It's also quite a resource suck to go through each password change cycle. But doing so is best practice that was ignored in the past for the sake of expediency, and now it's enforced with a big stick. As an IT professional, that's not entirely unwelcome.
I don't know how widespread they are, but they definitely crop up in the wild on audio gear. The (now aged) Cambridge Audio DACMagic II I'm listening to has BNC for inputs and digital pass-through, as well as XLR and RCA outputs. It was only a couple of hundred dollars a few years back.
Of course the BNCs have little adapters hanging off them to RCA, because nothing else (audio) I own has BNC connections...
The (now venerable) Matrox RT2000/2500 made use of the 3D features of the graphics card for video processing. There was still an additional board doing a lot of the work, but it was the same basic notion.
It was very impressive playing with real-time 3D transitions, flips, (one) alpha channel and so on at DV res one a standard PC. IIRC Final Cut HD depends similarly on the graphics board to be able to edit HD content on a Mac without additional hardware.
Not quite that simple. If you're an H-1B you do have the nasty stick of "if we fire you you have to go home" but they can't pay you less than the going rate for a given job. Part of the application process is telling the Department of Labor the details of the job for which you're hiring, and they tell you the minimum you're allowed to pay for it. You then must pay the applicant what you already offered him, or what the DoL specified -- whichever is higher.
Of course the system is gamed, but it's not as if there are no mechanisms to prevent sweatshop hiring.
All true, but having a good notion of outsourcing risks isn't the same as having a good way of evaluating those risks or a good plan to put into practice. You might want the book to help arrive at that point.
I'm not sure what exactly would stop it, but I recall Windows 2000 dropped support for the 386 processor. NT 4 was the last version for 386 owners, though that can't have been much fun...
Let's hope nobody sues Google for providing a phishing-detection service which turns out to be less than 100% reliable, and thusly inappropriate to abdicate all personal responsbility to.
Yes, though the press release only mentions MPEG-2 recording (sensibly enough, since it's making DVDs to be played "anywhere"). That's a lossy compression step from the stream that's recorded from your camcorder. For a DV camcorder you'd normally get a lossless transfer (via firewire) to your desktop for editing. You can edit MPEG-2, but it's more of a target format than an intermediate format.
Still, it's a great toy if you don't want to edit, or if you don't mind editing MPEG-2.
You may wish to patent your Magic Box and Magic Substance right away.
Not only have you found some transparent substance that blocks radioactivity in a way that nothing else does (or what would be the point?) but you've also found a chemical mix that is horribly hazardous to everything except "pieces of art" (I said "art", not "eight").
I don't see any reason why you could not take the video in at 30 frames per second progressive.
You could, but that wouldn't give you the nice "film look of progressive". The big problem with interlaced for capturing moving objects is combing (see the adverts for "comb filters" in TVs?) The object moves a little in between the two halves of the interlaced frame being recorded, and the visual result is a nasty jaggie effect on object borders, which looks a bit like the teeth of a comb.
That's a problem with the interlaced acquisition method. Progressive looks nicer if you've got stuff moving around much.
I've found the iPod to be a nice mix. I can buy stuff conveniently through iTunes, I can load stuff that isn't on the Music Store. Of course bleep.com is better, but having both is a good enough compromise for some of us.
That's not what he's getting at, and your suggestion that it is is unreasonable.
Ignoring the history of Microsoft's product security at large the simple point he makes is a good one: opening the source for inspection is not the same as the source actually being inspected. In fact it takes some time and skill to inspect source for vulnerabilities, and it's a distinctly unglamourous job. And that's why the "it's open source, it must be secure" mantra rings plenty hollow -- very few people are interested enough to take the time.
Or did you never have to compile a new version of Apache, OpenSSH or OpenSSL to fix a security problem?
Not cheap, but 3 CCD and progressive scan. And there's an underwater housing available (which isn't cheap, either). And Final Cut Pro on your Powerbook can edit 24p native.
They aren't "blow your mind" servers. Think PC-based hardware. A lot of servers, yes, but no special rocket science. The only high-end (ish) thing about the render clients is that they usually have plenty of RAM, from 1.5GB to 4GB each.
The network, too, isn't going to be anything as exotic as 10Gb/s. In fact the only single component that's really high-end is the storage -- a lot of data, and hundreds of clients accessing it simulataneously.
I work at an effects shop not a million miles from Pixar, and our rendering is done on a few hundred Athlons, some dedicated and some user workstations. Pixar is much bigger, and they have much more horsepower, but it's not orders of magnitude stuff.
I think SETI@Home is probably a long way ahead in raw aggregate CPU performance. Probably less far ahead in memory surface (but still ahead). But you couldn't use SETI@Home for a reason mentioned by another poster in this thread: bandwidth to storage. The render pipeline has a lot of I/O in it, and your distributed clients would be forever waiting to read or write from network-distant storage. Efficiency would suck, and reliability, too.
Even if you could do it, you wouldn't for issues of information security (which someone else mentioned here, too.)
Slashdot Mirror
I am. Rather than use my mod points. Fucktard.
Actually there are a few that can. Our office network is piggybacked on our mid-size data center, which has enough upstream link capacity that the 100Mbit/s desktop LAN is the slow bit. Downloading Apple software updates (Akamai), various Linux ISOs from mirrors (for example) we get several MByte/s throughput onto the desktop. Never *quite* maxing out that 100Mbit/s portion, but above 50Mbit/s.
That's in San Francisco, so YMMV, but there are sites out there that can feed at high rates and don't seem to throttle too much.
The problem with sending animals is that you have to send a functioning biosphere along with whatever creature you send into space. That's a big technical challenge, and for people it's a tradeoff between discomfort and the smartness of the machines against the smartness of the people. For animals, assume that they can't really contribute anything to the (meta) running of the biosphere. If you give them grass they can crap on it and all, but they won't be picking up a wrench to fix a broken water recycling plant or irrigation system. Also, for any significant duration your're talking about an environment where the significant input is energy. No "food enough for three days" but a system that'll continue to provide as long as it receives energy.
I'm guessing that it's more complex to set up an animal-supporting artificial biosphere in space than one to support humans.
I have a question that I've never really understood the answer to: why is creationism as a belief incompatible with science (including evolution)? Whatever science comes up with, one can always back out and say that the system as a whole was created by an omnipotent external creator. So what I don't get terribly well is why all the fuss about evolution in the first place, unless it's only dogma that's important?
(For me anyway, it's the notion that dogma, existing power structures and beliefs which are important -- rather than any serious notion of consistent broader philosophy -- that's scary.)
"I initially had reservations about safety, but Okarma emphasized that if the animal data is not good, the study will not move forward until problems are addressed."
Don't believe that. Not because it's stem cells, not because Tom Okarma's a bad person (I have no idea about his character), but because that's not an independent, verifiable standard. Be happy that bad things should be avoided because some procedure is being followed and verified, not because you have a good feeling about a person. You want a process that deals with the honest folk and the dishonest folk just the same way, and works for both. Trust breaks the day you have a dishonest person on the other side of the table.
Still, I guess this is offtopic. It's an interesting article.
Actually for US companies, due to compliance with Sarbanes Oxley and Payment Card Industry DSS standards, the problems the article talks about -- unchanging inter- and intra-application credentials -- are (getting) less of an issue.
SOx is horribly aspecific, and boils down to "you'd better be doing the right thing". The irony of audit company failings leading to an audit company boom aside, that means auditors are scared, pedantic and detailed. In the case of our auditors that includes frequent, documented changes to passwords for both human and machine users, including all applications and components thereof. It's been a pain to implement because people have been used to systems working as TFA states. It's also quite a resource suck to go through each password change cycle. But doing so is best practice that was ignored in the past for the sake of expediency, and now it's enforced with a big stick. As an IT professional, that's not entirely unwelcome.
My four Diet Cokes during the day should balance the 12 beers each evening.
I don't know how widespread they are, but they definitely crop up in the wild on audio gear. The (now aged) Cambridge Audio DACMagic II I'm listening to has BNC for inputs and digital pass-through, as well as XLR and RCA outputs. It was only a couple of hundred dollars a few years back.
Of course the BNCs have little adapters hanging off them to RCA, because nothing else (audio) I own has BNC connections...
The (now venerable) Matrox RT2000/2500 made use of the 3D features of the graphics card for video processing. There was still an additional board doing a lot of the work, but it was the same basic notion.
It was very impressive playing with real-time 3D transitions, flips, (one) alpha channel and so on at DV res one a standard PC. IIRC Final Cut HD depends similarly on the graphics board to be able to edit HD content on a Mac without additional hardware.
Not quite that simple. If you're an H-1B you do have the nasty stick of "if we fire you you have to go home" but they can't pay you less than the going rate for a given job. Part of the application process is telling the Department of Labor the details of the job for which you're hiring, and they tell you the minimum you're allowed to pay for it. You then must pay the applicant what you already offered him, or what the DoL specified -- whichever is higher.
Of course the system is gamed, but it's not as if there are no mechanisms to prevent sweatshop hiring.
Yeah, but at least it was a real speed demon.
All true, but having a good notion of outsourcing risks isn't the same as having a good way of evaluating those risks or a good plan to put into practice. You might want the book to help arrive at that point.
I'm not sure what exactly would stop it, but I recall Windows 2000 dropped support for the 386 processor. NT 4 was the last version for 386 owners, though that can't have been much fun...
Let's hope nobody sues Google for providing a phishing-detection service which turns out to be less than 100% reliable, and thusly inappropriate to abdicate all personal responsbility to.
Yes, though the press release only mentions MPEG-2 recording (sensibly enough, since it's making DVDs to be played "anywhere"). That's a lossy compression step from the stream that's recorded from your camcorder. For a DV camcorder you'd normally get a lossless transfer (via firewire) to your desktop for editing. You can edit MPEG-2, but it's more of a target format than an intermediate format.
Still, it's a great toy if you don't want to edit, or if you don't mind editing MPEG-2.
You may wish to patent your Magic Box and Magic Substance right away.
Not only have you found some transparent substance that blocks radioactivity in a way that nothing else does (or what would be the point?) but you've also found a chemical mix that is horribly hazardous to everything except "pieces of art" (I said "art", not "eight").
You're well clever.
Pfft. Next you'll be telling us it's tricky to design space probes to be caught by passing helicopters.
From the CIA World Factbook, USA:
Land Area: 9,161,923 sq km
Arable Land: 19.3%
So that's 1,768,251 sq km of farmland, 3% of which is 53048 sq km.
Don't want to be down on wind power or anything, but there's still quite the engineering challenge here.
You could, but that wouldn't give you the nice "film look of progressive". The big problem with interlaced for capturing moving objects is combing (see the adverts for "comb filters" in TVs?) The object moves a little in between the two halves of the interlaced frame being recorded, and the visual result is a nasty jaggie effect on object borders, which looks a bit like the teeth of a comb.
That's a problem with the interlaced acquisition method. Progressive looks nicer if you've got stuff moving around much.
DRM-Enabled only players? No thanks.
I've found the iPod to be a nice mix. I can buy stuff conveniently through iTunes, I can load stuff that isn't on the Music Store. Of course bleep.com is better, but having both is a good enough compromise for some of us.
No offence, but I don't care if you've got a dozen PhDs in Geology and you've been to the moon.
Tell us why Yucca Mountain is unsafe. And tell everyone else. That would be a lot more useful.
That's not what he's getting at, and your suggestion that it is is unreasonable.
Ignoring the history of Microsoft's product security at large the simple point he makes is a good one: opening the source for inspection is not the same as the source actually being inspected. In fact it takes some time and skill to inspect source for vulnerabilities, and it's a distinctly unglamourous job. And that's why the "it's open source, it must be secure" mantra rings plenty hollow -- very few people are interested enough to take the time.
Or did you never have to compile a new version of Apache, OpenSSH or OpenSSL to fix a security problem?
Panasonic AG-DVX100A
Not cheap, but 3 CCD and progressive scan. And there's an underwater housing available (which isn't cheap, either). And Final Cut Pro on your Powerbook can edit 24p native.
1014 m2?
You mean 32 metres on a side? I reckon it's bigger than a kids' playground, isn't it?
They aren't "blow your mind" servers. Think PC-based hardware. A lot of servers, yes, but no special rocket science. The only high-end (ish) thing about the render clients is that they usually have plenty of RAM, from 1.5GB to 4GB each.
The network, too, isn't going to be anything as exotic as 10Gb/s. In fact the only single component that's really high-end is the storage -- a lot of data, and hundreds of clients accessing it simulataneously.
I work at an effects shop not a million miles from Pixar, and our rendering is done on a few hundred Athlons, some dedicated and some user workstations. Pixar is much bigger, and they have much more horsepower, but it's not orders of magnitude stuff.
I think SETI@Home is probably a long way ahead in raw aggregate CPU performance. Probably less far ahead in memory surface (but still ahead). But you couldn't use SETI@Home for a reason mentioned by another poster in this thread: bandwidth to storage. The render pipeline has a lot of I/O in it, and your distributed clients would be forever waiting to read or write from network-distant storage. Efficiency would suck, and reliability, too.
Even if you could do it, you wouldn't for issues of information security (which someone else mentioned here, too.)