So without timezones you'd have to remember "Let's see... it's 14:00 UTC here now and I just got to work, so is my west coast colleague awake yet?
What does his shared calendar say his work hours are, and why do you care anyway, unless you've scheduled a meeting/conference call in the first place? All you actually care is about being able to schedule something common with them, right?
Also, in theory this was for the farmers: it's not like DST makes a rooster crow other than at dawn, and it doesn't make the cows want to be milked other than when their udders are full.
Those 10K filings are gloom and doom on advice of the lawyers as a pre-emptive measure against shareholder lawsuits down the road. They always have page after page of "we've got this problem, could be serious... and there's that problem, could be bad... don't forget this other problem, yikes..."
In my experience, the lawyers are happy with a a CYA Safe Harbor Statement; the only company I know which lowballs guidance statements is Apple, and every time they do it, their stock price goes down until the next quarterly numbers or iPad/iPhone/iWhatever comes out. Pretty much every other company tries to keep their market cap up; especially when they are being considered for acquisition. Nobody sane lowballs their stock price.
The recent ones pretty much say plain as day that the carriers are all pushing for higher ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) by driving up the cost of data plans which at the same time deemphasizing voice services. This basically means everyone wants to sell smart phones, and could care less about feature phones or voice-centric phones which are primarily being used for calls and/or text messages.
This has been in their 10-K filings with the SEC for the last 3 years that they have been headed this direction. It the same reason the European feature-phone and voice-centric phone manufacturers are also doing so terribly in most markets as higher speed data services are being rolled out: they are piss-poor vehicles for getting higher ARPU numbers when the cell phone market has basically come so close to saturation that many people are getting rid of their land lines in favor of cell phones (specifically, smart phones).
So this has basically been their plan of record for two years before Google got involved with them at all.
Yeah, Google gets a pretty good defensive patent portfolio out of it, but the Nortel portfolio that Apple, Microsoft, Rim. Sony,and Ericson got their grubby mitts on in July 2011 - 6,000 fairly important patents which cost them a combined $4.5B dollars. And unlike the Motorola, which are FRAND licensed to all comers, the Nortel patents are not.
Wow, not only did you not read the article, you didn't even look at the pictures, did you?
I looked at the pictures. I saw artifacts from scaling 1024x768 4:3 aspect ratio content to 1600x900 16:9 aspect ratio content from source material encoded at 1024x768, with intentional watermarking to identify the iTunes account that the data was pulled down from. Do you often watch your television with a microscope?
The cable is advertised as doing "up to 1080". It does not.
I'm not sure I buy the information in the blog post. Specifically, the thing that drives the EDID negotiation is the display device; it states what resolutions it supports, and the device driving the display picks from that list and advertises it back to the display. If the EDID negotiation in the display device isn't working correctly (many don't), or the information communicated over the input port is just plain incorrect, then it's going to negotiate down using the set of defaults that the device providing the input signal uses when the display device fails to adhere to the standard.
I've already pointed out that there are a large number of Samsung Televisions which will not negotiate EDID on inactive channels. This causes problems with Samsung Chromebooks when used with these televisions, unless you hook them up to the default HDMI input so that the input channel is active at the time. Ideally, the Linux video stack would workaround this problem by reattempting to negotiate an EDID periodically until it was either successful, or hell froze over, whichever came first. When Google was working on the Chromebooks and first encountered the problem, Samsung was able to supply beta firmware updates for the Television to allow the negotiation to happen on unselected but electrically active channels.
So those numbers in that blog post are for the EDID information being advertised by the display, and it's no wonder that the display is only offering 1600x900 (I would not be surprised if instead of a Samsung TV, the problem device was a DELL monitor instead).
Here's another TV that has the same problem as some of the Samsung TV's; it's a Kogan KGN1080P32VAA, and it actually fails to advertise the correct EDID information at all. You can work around the problem by stuffing fake EDID information into the nVidia card driver, but it's not at all surprising that Apple doesn't provide you with the ability to do this with their cable: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/478250/working-around-tvs-with-defective-edids-useedid-works-but-kills-hdmi-audio/
Alternately, you can continue to buy crappy displays with busted firmware, and workaround the handshake issue by buying a box like this one: http://www.vidabox.com/products_dr_doctor_hdmi.php to let you set the handshake see by the Apple cable to be correct.
Did you look at the picture? Those are not scaling artifacts: there is noise around edges. Those look like artifacts from MPEG or a similar compression algorithm. If it was just scaling, it would introduce aliasing patterns, which is not what they are talking about.
Unless they ripped the content themselves from a DVD to load onto the iPad Mini, I'm going to go with them having either downloaded a torrent (notoriously bad compression artifacts), or having downloaded it from the iTunes store (720P, always scaled, 1024x768, different aspect ratio from what was being displayed).
Next thing I know, you'll be claiming that Apple didn't replace all the already transcoded content on the Inktomi CDN with new, higher resolution content over night!
What does that have to do with this discussion?
It's all encoded at 1024x768 4:3 aspect ratio; that's what it has
Um... Murdoch is a left-leaning ideologue? Really?
Just wondering how you could possibly come to that conclusion.
For some things, he's very liberal, such as hosting a fundraiser in 2006 Hilary Clinton's Senate reelection campaign, or his 2008 involvement in the New York Post's endorsement of the Obama presidential campaign.
In other areas, he's "pro business", which is to be expected, but his support of SOPA and PIPA were mostly self-interest, and were no stronger than e.g. Barbra Boxer's similar support of both bills on behalf of Hollywood.
His "path to legality" stance for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. is also relatively liberal, although you could also argue that it's simple pragmatism, that pragmatism is based in business interests involving cheap labor and an unwillingness to enact certain social reforms in the face of current minimum wage arguments. Given the anti-immigration stance of the Sun (also a Murdock paper, but British), it's more or less just printing what people who are willing to buy papers want to hear.
So the answer is more or less "it depends on which way the wind is blowing".
Stop the presses! The are scaling 1024x768 content to 1600x900, and there are MPEG artifacts happening as a result?!?! The deuce you say! There's never artifacts when you scale things! Never, I say!
Next thing I know, you'll be claiming that Apple didn't replace all the already transcoded content on the Inktomi CDN with new, higher resolution content over night!
It's almost already too scandalous that they used a CPU and software to avoid having to design and spin silicon for a Lightning-to-HDMI converter ASIC.
I can only echo some of the sentiments expressed in the bad ratings they received in several reviews from owners of Samsung Televisions which improperly negotiate EDID information by failing to negotiate on input sources which are not selected at the time the device comes online. One would almost think this might be an issue for Linux systems when trying to use HDMI to output to Samsung equipment, or that Dish Network DVRs might have similar problems (with the fix being to plug the device into the input channel which is selected by default when the television is powered on).
Intel is unwilling to pair a higher end GPU with a lower end CPU, since given that much of the CPU is pent on eye candy and CODECs these days, doing so would cannibalize higher end CPU sales.
If they could guarantee that this would only every be used in a hone or a tablet without a keyboard dock like the transformer, they'd likely be willing to go for it, but just as the recent Samsung ARM ChromeBook demonstrated, phone/tablet chips can and will be used in laptops, and likely eventually desktops. The thing which has stopped this so far is the need for Intel software compatibility, which the ChromeBook side-steps by not running (non-NaCl'ed) native code, and being mostly a browser.
If Intel came out with a CPU that was not a compute giant, but had a good GPU which could be used for higher powered math calculations, thus obviating the need for a high powered CPU, then there would quickly be a lot of machines in the laptop space grabbing them up. This wouldn't be terrible for Intel, as long as they charged higher prices for the things based on the GPU power rather than the CPU power --- but doing that would be disastrous for their ability to compete in the tablet/phone market, so they are somewhat pilloried by having one monolithic instruction set across their product line. Ironically, capping the instruction set to make it inappropriate for desktop would throw the CPU out as yet-another-Intel-incompatible-ARM-competitor, so Catch-22.
I'll answer your question, and set some of the background in (very) layman's terms.
It's a gas centrifuge. Uranium + impurities are dissolved in acid to get Uranium HexaFlouride gas, and then it's spun to high speed, with the tendency being to move in a straight line, in accordance with Newtons laws of motion. The resulting centripetal acceleration results in a stream that can be inertially deflected to separate out the heavier (U-238 HexaFlouride) from the lighter (U-235 HexaFlouride), effectively enriching the uranium. The resulting gasses are further processed with more highly electronegative materials to remove the Flourine, resulting in purified Uranium. The process is described in some detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_centrifuge
The electromagnets are used for the rotors and the motor, both of which require a highly precise rate of movement of the material within the system. This is used because, despite machining the centrifuges to tight tolerances, the electromagnetic controls are required to achieve the necessarily precise through on the mass difference such that it hits the band-gap aperture for the purposes of separation.
The control systems which control these electromagnets to such a high degree of precision were what was attacked by the Stuxnet virus, introducing a "wobble" in the centrifuges that resulted in less precise material flow through the system, and thus a much lower yield on enrichment.
Since the centrifuges are typically arranged in a cascade, the number of elements in the cascade, compared to the specs on the centrifuges, gives an external indication of exactly how far the enrichment process is intended to proceed: i.e. is the facility built to refine to power plant grade U-238, or is it built to refine to weapons grade U-238?
The point is actually relatively moot, in any case, since even power plant grade U-238 could be subject to an additional gaseous diffusin refining process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_diffusion at another facility to process it into weapons grade U-238. Or the power plant grade U-238 could be used in a breeder reactor to produce Pu, which could then be refined to weapons-grade, so it is a matter of latency, not of capability, between power plant grade fuel and weapons grade material.
One of the primary nonproliferation enforcement tactics which was used was to offer to sell them power plant grade U-238, in exchange for material accounting and prevention of use of breeder reactors. In other words, accept additional oversight and external regulation in exchange for cheap power plant grade U-238.
Irans state problems with this deal are that: (1) the supply could be cut off at any point for political reasons; (2) they would not be self-sufficient in their supply chain (more than just the cut-off, a technology level issue); (3) without access to additional nuclear technological know-how, sciences such as nuclear medicine would be closed to them, and (4) only idiots like the US rely on straight U-238 power reactors and not reprocessing spent fuel instead of burying the waste under national parks
NB: Reprocessing of spent fuel instead of burying it due to executive order of Jimmy Carter would significantly stretch the U-238 supply. Breeder reactors are (effectively) self-fueling, and would stretch the "energy lifetime" of the U-238 supply from hundreds of years to 10's of thousands of years. After about 35,000 years, it's a pretty good bet that Fusion reactors would be some 50 years away.
its an irrelevant question that only we are asking. we sanction the country into poverty in the hopes we can reign in a rising power that would upset the 'regional balance' of american dominance that ensures cheap oil and compliance through a network of corrupt foreign leaders.
You realize you are misguided, right?
Other than the current expeditionary military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. is independent of Middle East oil; the protection of the flow of oil there is to benefit (primarily) European interests, since they are highly dependent on Middle East oil. Why do you think France was so friendly with Libya, or that the British were willing to turn the Lockerby bomber over to them?
The US military has been accounting for about 50% of US oil consumption since this while thing began, which is one of the things which has driven the domestic oil costs so much higher, since only about 35% of the oil they are using is actually coming from the region: an active petroleum-based military eats a LOT of oil.
Everyone thinks the US is over there for oil: in part it is, but it's oil for its allies in Europe. Mostly it's there to try to stabilize the region (which I admit, is a losing proposition; enforced Globocop mutual security games are typically unstable). In the long term, it keeps Europe and China for competing with the US for South American oil -- but that's really, really long term.
Dirty little "secret": politicians aren't that good at thinking past the next election, any more than boards of directors can think past the next quarter, CEOs can think past the next 6 months, or line managers can think past the next year. The effect is called a "fiscal horizon", and it limits how far into the future anyone is willing to plan. So for politicians, that's 12 years for senators, 4 years for congressmen, 8 years for a president/political party.
PS: One of the biggest reasons for the First Gulf War dragging on as long as it did was the attempt by Iraq to establish an exchange not based on dollars, which would have detached the value of the US dollar from the price of oil. Oil is the defacto replacement for silver, which was the explicit replacement for gold, as a limited controlled resource used to prop up the value of a currency, rather than letting it float to market levels. We should only be thankful that DeBeers wasn't involved.
It doesn't always follow that the money controls the editors.
Well this certainly explains the dearth of Dice-related articles on Slashdot. I was wondering why there were never any Dice articles. I'm glad that the money does not control the editors at either Al Jazeera, Fox, MSNBC, or Slashdot, and that all our news sources are so clean-handed and unbiased about this sort of thing.
If so, I have a friend in the same boat. They've recently switched their cheapest hosting solution to no longer filter SPAM; in order to get SPAM filtering, you have to "upgrade" to a more expensive hosting solution. They've decided that they can monetize SPAM filtering, and so they've discontinued it from the cheap accounts to incentivize you to upgrade to a more expensive account - or just switch providers to one that SPAM filters, but they figure you won't do that.
Note that my friend expected, like you, that the email addresses the SPAM started coming in on were also unknown, but they were common enough address names, and the SPAMmers tend to target entire dictionaries until they find ones that don't bounce, so even things like "movies123@" started getting the SPAM. This isn't necessarily what you're seeing, since you aren't actually giving a lot of useful diagnostic information in your question, but it's a possibility.
Ah - there you have it. I suspect that Google doesn't have a shabby work space that houses 3 engineers to a single table... Where support calls are king, interrupting everyone else that might also have work to get done. Did I mention there were multiple tables in one room?
You have just described the Google ChromeOS Ninja room. Google definitely has workspaces like that, and some open pan areas do "hotbunking", where you bring in your laptop, find an available spot, and plug it into a large moniter or monitors, a keyboard, and mouse (if you want to use them).
I'm not sure why so many people are reacting as though there's a universally superior approach here. All teams and organizations are different. Having employees present at the office seems to work for Google, and presumably Mayer has good reason to think it will work at Yahoo as well. I'm sure there are also lots of big organizations where the opposite is true.
A lot of technology companies are moving to cube farms and/or "open plan" offices. Facebook did it primarily because Google did it, and Google allows groups to vote on whether their group will have the open plan (tables, usually facing each other, no cube walls) vs. cubes (which are typically 4 to a cube, in the corners, with two open sides opposite each other, but may also be individual cubes).
So in order to emulate Google's income, they emulate Google's work environment. Marissa is currently doing this at Yahoo, including the "free meal" thing Google does.
Apple went to double and triple bunking their offices a while back for similar reasons to those that drove Google to cube farming: not because it's more productive, but because you can fit more people in less space (they had the office space, but it was being used by a couple small teams working on secret projects, so rather than relocate them to a small rented space, they double-bunked the main campus).
A lot of technology workers, on the other hand, are deep thinkers with CPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_partial_attention and are really hating this move as making them less productive than they would otherwise be. At Google this is less of an issue due to schedule shifting -- one of my coworkers came in at 2PM and left at or after 11PM, another came in at 5AM and left around 2PM. Their only overlap was at lunch, or at scheduled meetings. Both engaged in this behaviour to buy themselves about 4 hours of "quiet time" during which they could actually get work done.
The typical rejoinder to this is "so wear headphones", but that doesn't work if code is being processed in the same part of your brain that processes music (this is how it works for me and other people I know), or if you get distracted by motion in your peripheral vision (again, this is an issue for me, and for others, but they are not always intersecting sets). I also did the time shifting to get work done, and before I left, I often did my work down in a lab with no one else around. Some people camp out in the phone rooms, which is really impolite if they are all full and you need to make a private phone call, but it lets them get their work done.
My point in the above paragraph is that people are finding workarounds to the problems created for their ability to be productive due to the cube farm/open plan offices, even at the main company driving their adoption (by emulation) into other companies.
I guess the people are reacting this way in this forum is because we are disproportionately information workers who have issues with ability to think deeply about problems when there is an expectation of interruption. While this isn't a terrible productivity sink for most of us, when the ability to think deeply about a problem is required, we employ workarounds that would not be necessary were we working in a home office. In these times, we can think around corners that we would otherwise not be able to think around, and which, in many cases, could not be thought around at all by "normal" people who can't put themselves into what is effectively an autistic funk. Some of us (Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, among others) go so far as to rock back and forth in their chairs.
Thankfully for some of us that IBM Almaden still has wood paneled individual offices with closable doors; this mimics the environment at IBM Watson, and at the former Bell Labs. Other companies are likely going to lose at least a chunk (the non-workaroundable part) of the time their deep thinkers are able to spend thinki
Guess there is a difference between your definition of "damage" and the GP's.
In a business setting, any time, effort, or money that you spent, and would not have to spend if there were no breach is considered "damage".
Excuse me...
Why is it that you think that a breach that is committed by someone who reports it to you and potentially faces repercussions for their having a Bushido-style sense of honor about things causes less damage than a breach committed by someone who then proceeds to profit from said breach without disclosing it to you, up to and including selling the details of how to repeat it to third parties?
Do you somehow think that the people who open themselves up to the repercussions are smarter than the ones who keep quiet and face less risk?
From your "business perspective", I'd call the people who kept their mouth shut "smarter". Why is it you think a "smarter" person would be unable to get into your system -- or hasn't already -- than one you would, by your own lights, class as "less smart"?
It would be a wonderful world if that happened. I've always been really sad that we didn't manage to have a micropayment system in place in 1995, so that we could pay for what we used instead of having advertising shoved down their throats. I would much rather be the customer than the product.
That's a great idea. Then they could make a micropayment back to me for everything in the page they end up sending me that I don't actually read so they can offset the bandwidth cap that my ISP starts charging me extra for after it's been exceeded.
PS: Micropayments are an incredible bitch to implement, if you've ever tried it, since the transaction fees and data storage pile up. There's a reason the phone companies charge so much per text message, and a lot of it has to do with paying micropayments to themselves every time someone makes a micropayment on sending a text message. The transactional overhead is very high.
When I worked at Google, there were a lot of remote workers, since teams were put together for specific purposes, and the geographic locations varied widely between the best people for the task at hand. This worked as well, in 99% of the cases, as having the person locally in the office. But Google has a pretty big, pretty sophisticated teleconferencing infrastructure which perhaps Yahoo does not have/can not currently afford to buy.
It's also frequently very difficult to communicate corporate culture remotely; for this reason, when someone was hired permanently into a position in the team, even from another team already within Google, they were expected to spend several months with their coworkers in Mountainview. If the office containing most of the on-site team had been in Germany, they would have been expected there instead.
I imagine that it would be amazingly difficult to make a cultural shift in a company with remote workers, even if you imposed the same restrictions in terms of having them work locally, and if, as Marissa seems to be trying to do, you do it by throwing a big switch, that's a rather large up front cost, unless you own Marriott Suites or a similar housing complex.
That said, Marissa is apparently trying to turn Yahoo into a mini-Google. I don't know how this will work out for them, but it probably can't be worse than if they'd taken the purchase offer from Microsoft and become a mini-Microsoft.
My gut feeling is that this isn't going to be terrifically successful; I knew a lot of the people who were initially involved in Yahoo. I also know that a lot of managers dislike managing remotely on general principles; for those managers, the people "allowed" to work remotely were the "rock stars": people who were allowed to be remote not because the managers were OK with it, but because they would otherwise lose the talent. They've already had something of a brain-drain: I know several of the Yahoo top technical people already jumped to Facebook, Google, and other companies, some of them years ago, when it looked like Yahoo was starting to go down hill.
It really remains to be seen what, other than a mini-Google, Marissa is trying to build at Yahoo, but it should be interesting to watch.
Expect that most of it's capability is going to be used in running the display. Here are the stats in case someone else needs to understand how limited it is:
Actually, the point is the only reason you care is because it happened to a rich person. This happens to poor/average people all the time but we don't hear about it and we don't care about it.
I think the reason we care about it is that it's a rights violation and we heard about it. We could give a flying whether it was a mentally ill homeless person camping in Golden Gate Park who had their blanket stolen or someone generally considered morally repugnant, like Larry Ellison, having a yacht stolen
It's kind of hard to care about an event of which you are unaware because some indignant AC fails to successfully communicate about the event in a compelling way, and only offers vague anecdotes about it "happens to poor/average people all the time". Pictures or it didn't happen. Thanks.
What's his net worth? I found something quoting $200 million, which would be well short of the cost of even an unmanned Mars mission. He'll have to get other investors.
I'm pretty sure that really depends on who he's going to have build the equipment, and whether he's willing to do it in a country which will happily ignore patent licensing.
The DC-X was completed in 21 months by a team of 100 people, at a cost of around 60 million in 1991 dollars. That'd be ~$100M today, assuming we learned exactly zilch from the first one. If he's willing to build SSTO vehicles, and he's willing to cut some corners based on what was already learned in previous research, and he's willing to go to a non-US friendly country who won't cooperate on preventing it, the costs go down.
Venezuela could be a candidate, and so could a couple of the former Soviet Republics. A DC-X with a patent-ignoring linear aerospike engine would likely be a pretty sweet vehicle. If he's willing to sell launch services on the things for a while, he could probably raise any additional funding rather quickly. If he's willing to sell completed spacecraft to anyone who wanted to buy one at a hefty markup, he could probably do it even faster.
It's not that far outside the realm of possibility for someone with 1/5th of a billion dollars to consider. Especially if you consider that launch costs have been pretty intentionally inflated up to this point.
Slashdot Mirror
So without timezones you'd have to remember "Let's see... it's 14:00 UTC here now and I just got to work, so is my west coast colleague awake yet?
What does his shared calendar say his work hours are, and why do you care anyway, unless you've scheduled a meeting/conference call in the first place? All you actually care is about being able to schedule something common with them, right?
Also, in theory this was for the farmers: it's not like DST makes a rooster crow other than at dawn, and it doesn't make the cows want to be milked other than when their udders are full.
Those 10K filings are gloom and doom on advice of the lawyers as a pre-emptive measure against shareholder lawsuits down the road. They always have page after page of "we've got this problem, could be serious... and there's that problem, could be bad... don't forget this other problem, yikes..."
In my experience, the lawyers are happy with a a CYA Safe Harbor Statement; the only company I know which lowballs guidance statements is Apple, and every time they do it, their stock price goes down until the next quarterly numbers or iPad/iPhone/iWhatever comes out. Pretty much every other company tries to keep their market cap up; especially when they are being considered for acquisition. Nobody sane lowballs their stock price.
Three questions:
(1) Has the graduation rate gone up correspondingly?
(2) How many actually complete their degree without running in "year stretching" by the University choosing not to offer required classes?
(3) How many are at prestigious Universities in the right programs, rather than at Flash Game Programmer/JavaScript diploma mills?
Doesn't anyone read their 10-K filings?
The recent ones pretty much say plain as day that the carriers are all pushing for higher ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) by driving up the cost of data plans which at the same time deemphasizing voice services. This basically means everyone wants to sell smart phones, and could care less about feature phones or voice-centric phones which are primarily being used for calls and/or text messages.
This has been in their 10-K filings with the SEC for the last 3 years that they have been headed this direction. It the same reason the European feature-phone and voice-centric phone manufacturers are also doing so terribly in most markets as higher speed data services are being rolled out: they are piss-poor vehicles for getting higher ARPU numbers when the cell phone market has basically come so close to saturation that many people are getting rid of their land lines in favor of cell phones (specifically, smart phones).
So this has basically been their plan of record for two years before Google got involved with them at all.
Yeah, Google gets a pretty good defensive patent portfolio out of it, but the Nortel portfolio that Apple, Microsoft, Rim. Sony,and Ericson got their grubby mitts on in July 2011 - 6,000 fairly important patents which cost them a combined $4.5B dollars. And unlike the Motorola, which are FRAND licensed to all comers, the Nortel patents are not.
Wow, not only did you not read the article, you didn't even look at the pictures, did you?
I looked at the pictures. I saw artifacts from scaling 1024x768 4:3 aspect ratio content to 1600x900 16:9 aspect ratio content from source material encoded at 1024x768, with intentional watermarking to identify the iTunes account that the data was pulled down from. Do you often watch your television with a microscope?
The cable is advertised as doing "up to 1080". It does not.
I'm not sure I buy the information in the blog post. Specifically, the thing that drives the EDID negotiation is the display device; it states what resolutions it supports, and the device driving the display picks from that list and advertises it back to the display. If the EDID negotiation in the display device isn't working correctly (many don't), or the information communicated over the input port is just plain incorrect, then it's going to negotiate down using the set of defaults that the device providing the input signal uses when the display device fails to adhere to the standard.
I've already pointed out that there are a large number of Samsung Televisions which will not negotiate EDID on inactive channels. This causes problems with Samsung Chromebooks when used with these televisions, unless you hook them up to the default HDMI input so that the input channel is active at the time. Ideally, the Linux video stack would workaround this problem by reattempting to negotiate an EDID periodically until it was either successful, or hell froze over, whichever came first. When Google was working on the Chromebooks and first encountered the problem, Samsung was able to supply beta firmware updates for the Television to allow the negotiation to happen on unselected but electrically active channels.
So those numbers in that blog post are for the EDID information being advertised by the display, and it's no wonder that the display is only offering 1600x900 (I would not be surprised if instead of a Samsung TV, the problem device was a DELL monitor instead).
Here's another TV that has the same problem as some of the Samsung TV's; it's a Kogan KGN1080P32VAA, and it actually fails to advertise the correct EDID information at all. You can work around the problem by stuffing fake EDID information into the nVidia card driver, but it's not at all surprising that Apple doesn't provide you with the ability to do this with their cable: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/478250/working-around-tvs-with-defective-edids-useedid-works-but-kills-hdmi-audio/
Alternately, you can continue to buy crappy displays with busted firmware, and workaround the handshake issue by buying a box like this one: http://www.vidabox.com/products_dr_doctor_hdmi.php to let you set the handshake see by the Apple cable to be correct.
Did you look at the picture? Those are not scaling artifacts: there is noise around edges. Those look like artifacts from MPEG or a similar compression algorithm. If it was just scaling, it would introduce aliasing patterns, which is not what they are talking about.
Unless they ripped the content themselves from a DVD to load onto the iPad Mini, I'm going to go with them having either downloaded a torrent (notoriously bad compression artifacts), or having downloaded it from the iTunes store (720P, always scaled, 1024x768, different aspect ratio from what was being displayed).
Next thing I know, you'll be claiming that Apple didn't replace all the already transcoded content on the Inktomi CDN with new, higher resolution content over night!
What does that have to do with this discussion?
It's all encoded at 1024x768 4:3 aspect ratio; that's what it has
Um... Murdoch is a left-leaning ideologue? Really?
Just wondering how you could possibly come to that conclusion.
For some things, he's very liberal, such as hosting a fundraiser in 2006 Hilary Clinton's Senate reelection campaign, or his 2008 involvement in the New York Post's endorsement of the Obama presidential campaign.
In other areas, he's "pro business", which is to be expected, but his support of SOPA and PIPA were mostly self-interest, and were no stronger than e.g. Barbra Boxer's similar support of both bills on behalf of Hollywood.
His "path to legality" stance for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. is also relatively liberal, although you could also argue that it's simple pragmatism, that pragmatism is based in business interests involving cheap labor and an unwillingness to enact certain social reforms in the face of current minimum wage arguments. Given the anti-immigration stance of the Sun (also a Murdock paper, but British), it's more or less just printing what people who are willing to buy papers want to hear.
So the answer is more or less "it depends on which way the wind is blowing".
Stop the presses! The are scaling 1024x768 content to 1600x900, and there are MPEG artifacts happening as a result?!?! The deuce you say! There's never artifacts when you scale things! Never, I say!
Next thing I know, you'll be claiming that Apple didn't replace all the already transcoded content on the Inktomi CDN with new, higher resolution content over night!
It's almost already too scandalous that they used a CPU and software to avoid having to design and spin silicon for a Lightning-to-HDMI converter ASIC.
I can only echo some of the sentiments expressed in the bad ratings they received in several reviews from owners of Samsung Televisions which improperly negotiate EDID information by failing to negotiate on input sources which are not selected at the time the device comes online. One would almost think this might be an issue for Linux systems when trying to use HDMI to output to Samsung equipment, or that Dish Network DVRs might have similar problems (with the fix being to plug the device into the input channel which is selected by default when the television is powered on).
Consume Watchdog is a paid astroturfing company; specifically, they are owned by Grassroots Enterprises Inc."
http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/
Intel is unwilling to pair a higher end GPU with a lower end CPU, since given that much of the CPU is pent on eye candy and CODECs these days, doing so would cannibalize higher end CPU sales.
If they could guarantee that this would only every be used in a hone or a tablet without a keyboard dock like the transformer, they'd likely be willing to go for it, but just as the recent Samsung ARM ChromeBook demonstrated, phone/tablet chips can and will be used in laptops, and likely eventually desktops. The thing which has stopped this so far is the need for Intel software compatibility, which the ChromeBook side-steps by not running (non-NaCl'ed) native code, and being mostly a browser.
If Intel came out with a CPU that was not a compute giant, but had a good GPU which could be used for higher powered math calculations, thus obviating the need for a high powered CPU, then there would quickly be a lot of machines in the laptop space grabbing them up. This wouldn't be terrible for Intel, as long as they charged higher prices for the things based on the GPU power rather than the CPU power --- but doing that would be disastrous for their ability to compete in the tablet/phone market, so they are somewhat pilloried by having one monolithic instruction set across their product line. Ironically, capping the instruction set to make it inappropriate for desktop would throw the CPU out as yet-another-Intel-incompatible-ARM-competitor, so Catch-22.
I'll answer your question, and set some of the background in (very) layman's terms.
It's a gas centrifuge. Uranium + impurities are dissolved in acid to get Uranium HexaFlouride gas, and then it's spun to high speed, with the tendency being to move in a straight line, in accordance with Newtons laws of motion. The resulting centripetal acceleration results in a stream that can be inertially deflected to separate out the heavier (U-238 HexaFlouride) from the lighter (U-235 HexaFlouride), effectively enriching the uranium. The resulting gasses are further processed with more highly electronegative materials to remove the Flourine, resulting in purified Uranium. The process is described in some detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_centrifuge
The electromagnets are used for the rotors and the motor, both of which require a highly precise rate of movement of the material within the system. This is used because, despite machining the centrifuges to tight tolerances, the electromagnetic controls are required to achieve the necessarily precise through on the mass difference such that it hits the band-gap aperture for the purposes of separation.
The control systems which control these electromagnets to such a high degree of precision were what was attacked by the Stuxnet virus, introducing a "wobble" in the centrifuges that resulted in less precise material flow through the system, and thus a much lower yield on enrichment.
Since the centrifuges are typically arranged in a cascade, the number of elements in the cascade, compared to the specs on the centrifuges, gives an external indication of exactly how far the enrichment process is intended to proceed: i.e. is the facility built to refine to power plant grade U-238, or is it built to refine to weapons grade U-238?
The point is actually relatively moot, in any case, since even power plant grade U-238 could be subject to an additional gaseous diffusin refining process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_diffusion at another facility to process it into weapons grade U-238. Or the power plant grade U-238 could be used in a breeder reactor to produce Pu, which could then be refined to weapons-grade, so it is a matter of latency, not of capability, between power plant grade fuel and weapons grade material.
One of the primary nonproliferation enforcement tactics which was used was to offer to sell them power plant grade U-238, in exchange for material accounting and prevention of use of breeder reactors. In other words, accept additional oversight and external regulation in exchange for cheap power plant grade U-238.
Irans state problems with this deal are that: (1) the supply could be cut off at any point for political reasons; (2) they would not be self-sufficient in their supply chain (more than just the cut-off, a technology level issue); (3) without access to additional nuclear technological know-how, sciences such as nuclear medicine would be closed to them, and (4) only idiots like the US rely on straight U-238 power reactors and not reprocessing spent fuel instead of burying the waste under national parks
NB: Reprocessing of spent fuel instead of burying it due to executive order of Jimmy Carter would significantly stretch the U-238 supply. Breeder reactors are (effectively) self-fueling, and would stretch the "energy lifetime" of the U-238 supply from hundreds of years to 10's of thousands of years. After about 35,000 years, it's a pretty good bet that Fusion reactors would be some 50 years away.
its an irrelevant question that only we are asking. we sanction the country into poverty in the hopes we can reign in a rising power that would upset the 'regional balance' of american dominance that ensures cheap oil and compliance through a network of corrupt foreign leaders.
You realize you are misguided, right?
Other than the current expeditionary military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. is independent of Middle East oil; the protection of the flow of oil there is to benefit (primarily) European interests, since they are highly dependent on Middle East oil. Why do you think France was so friendly with Libya, or that the British were willing to turn the Lockerby bomber over to them?
The US military has been accounting for about 50% of US oil consumption since this while thing began, which is one of the things which has driven the domestic oil costs so much higher, since only about 35% of the oil they are using is actually coming from the region: an active petroleum-based military eats a LOT of oil.
Everyone thinks the US is over there for oil: in part it is, but it's oil for its allies in Europe. Mostly it's there to try to stabilize the region (which I admit, is a losing proposition; enforced Globocop mutual security games are typically unstable). In the long term, it keeps Europe and China for competing with the US for South American oil -- but that's really, really long term.
Dirty little "secret": politicians aren't that good at thinking past the next election, any more than boards of directors can think past the next quarter, CEOs can think past the next 6 months, or line managers can think past the next year. The effect is called a "fiscal horizon", and it limits how far into the future anyone is willing to plan. So for politicians, that's 12 years for senators, 4 years for congressmen, 8 years for a president/political party.
PS: One of the biggest reasons for the First Gulf War dragging on as long as it did was the attempt by Iraq to establish an exchange not based on dollars, which would have detached the value of the US dollar from the price of oil. Oil is the defacto replacement for silver, which was the explicit replacement for gold, as a limited controlled resource used to prop up the value of a currency, rather than letting it float to market levels. We should only be thankful that DeBeers wasn't involved.
It doesn't always follow that the money controls the editors.
Well this certainly explains the dearth of Dice-related articles on Slashdot. I was wondering why there were never any Dice articles. I'm glad that the money does not control the editors at either Al Jazeera, Fox, MSNBC, or Slashdot, and that all our news sources are so clean-handed and unbiased about this sort of thing.
Is your mail hosted at Network Solutions?
If so, I have a friend in the same boat. They've recently switched their cheapest hosting solution to no longer filter SPAM; in order to get SPAM filtering, you have to "upgrade" to a more expensive hosting solution. They've decided that they can monetize SPAM filtering, and so they've discontinued it from the cheap accounts to incentivize you to upgrade to a more expensive account - or just switch providers to one that SPAM filters, but they figure you won't do that.
Note that my friend expected, like you, that the email addresses the SPAM started coming in on were also unknown, but they were common enough address names, and the SPAMmers tend to target entire dictionaries until they find ones that don't bounce, so even things like "movies123@" started getting the SPAM. This isn't necessarily what you're seeing, since you aren't actually giving a lot of useful diagnostic information in your question, but it's a possibility.
Ah - there you have it. I suspect that Google doesn't have a shabby work space that houses 3 engineers to a single table ... Where support calls are king, interrupting everyone else that might also have work to get done. Did I mention there were multiple tables in one room?
You have just described the Google ChromeOS Ninja room. Google definitely has workspaces like that, and some open pan areas do "hotbunking", where you bring in your laptop, find an available spot, and plug it into a large moniter or monitors, a keyboard, and mouse (if you want to use them).
I'm not sure why so many people are reacting as though there's a universally superior approach here. All teams and organizations are different. Having employees present at the office seems to work for Google, and presumably Mayer has good reason to think it will work at Yahoo as well. I'm sure there are also lots of big organizations where the opposite is true.
A lot of technology companies are moving to cube farms and/or "open plan" offices. Facebook did it primarily because Google did it, and Google allows groups to vote on whether their group will have the open plan (tables, usually facing each other, no cube walls) vs. cubes (which are typically 4 to a cube, in the corners, with two open sides opposite each other, but may also be individual cubes).
So in order to emulate Google's income, they emulate Google's work environment. Marissa is currently doing this at Yahoo, including the "free meal" thing Google does.
Apple went to double and triple bunking their offices a while back for similar reasons to those that drove Google to cube farming: not because it's more productive, but because you can fit more people in less space (they had the office space, but it was being used by a couple small teams working on secret projects, so rather than relocate them to a small rented space, they double-bunked the main campus).
A lot of technology workers, on the other hand, are deep thinkers with CPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_partial_attention and are really hating this move as making them less productive than they would otherwise be. At Google this is less of an issue due to schedule shifting -- one of my coworkers came in at 2PM and left at or after 11PM, another came in at 5AM and left around 2PM. Their only overlap was at lunch, or at scheduled meetings. Both engaged in this behaviour to buy themselves about 4 hours of "quiet time" during which they could actually get work done.
The typical rejoinder to this is "so wear headphones", but that doesn't work if code is being processed in the same part of your brain that processes music (this is how it works for me and other people I know), or if you get distracted by motion in your peripheral vision (again, this is an issue for me, and for others, but they are not always intersecting sets). I also did the time shifting to get work done, and before I left, I often did my work down in a lab with no one else around. Some people camp out in the phone rooms, which is really impolite if they are all full and you need to make a private phone call, but it lets them get their work done.
My point in the above paragraph is that people are finding workarounds to the problems created for their ability to be productive due to the cube farm/open plan offices, even at the main company driving their adoption (by emulation) into other companies.
I guess the people are reacting this way in this forum is because we are disproportionately information workers who have issues with ability to think deeply about problems when there is an expectation of interruption. While this isn't a terrible productivity sink for most of us, when the ability to think deeply about a problem is required, we employ workarounds that would not be necessary were we working in a home office. In these times, we can think around corners that we would otherwise not be able to think around, and which, in many cases, could not be thought around at all by "normal" people who can't put themselves into what is effectively an autistic funk. Some of us (Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, among others) go so far as to rock back and forth in their chairs.
Thankfully for some of us that IBM Almaden still has wood paneled individual offices with closable doors; this mimics the environment at IBM Watson, and at the former Bell Labs. Other companies are likely going to lose at least a chunk (the non-workaroundable part) of the time their deep thinkers are able to spend thinki
It was only a problem because he violated his employment contract by sending off his SecureID token.
Guess there is a difference between your definition of "damage" and the GP's.
In a business setting, any time, effort, or money that you spent, and would not have to spend if there were no breach is considered "damage".
Excuse me...
Why is it that you think that a breach that is committed by someone who reports it to you and potentially faces repercussions for their having a Bushido-style sense of honor about things causes less damage than a breach committed by someone who then proceeds to profit from said breach without disclosing it to you, up to and including selling the details of how to repeat it to third parties?
Do you somehow think that the people who open themselves up to the repercussions are smarter than the ones who keep quiet and face less risk?
From your "business perspective", I'd call the people who kept their mouth shut "smarter". Why is it you think a "smarter" person would be unable to get into your system -- or hasn't already -- than one you would, by your own lights, class as "less smart"?
Your scenario has little or nothing to do with the story. This guy broke into some networks and reviled business information to the public.
Uh... where exactly did he criticize business information in an abusive or angrily insulting manner?
It would be a wonderful world if that happened. I've always been really sad that we didn't manage to have a micropayment system in place in 1995, so that we could pay for what we used instead of having advertising shoved down their throats. I would much rather be the customer than the product.
That's a great idea. Then they could make a micropayment back to me for everything in the page they end up sending me that I don't actually read so they can offset the bandwidth cap that my ISP starts charging me extra for after it's been exceeded.
PS: Micropayments are an incredible bitch to implement, if you've ever tried it, since the transaction fees and data storage pile up. There's a reason the phone companies charge so much per text message, and a lot of it has to do with paying micropayments to themselves every time someone makes a micropayment on sending a text message. The transactional overhead is very high.
When I worked at Google, there were a lot of remote workers, since teams were put together for specific purposes, and the geographic locations varied widely between the best people for the task at hand. This worked as well, in 99% of the cases, as having the person locally in the office. But Google has a pretty big, pretty sophisticated teleconferencing infrastructure which perhaps Yahoo does not have/can not currently afford to buy.
It's also frequently very difficult to communicate corporate culture remotely; for this reason, when someone was hired permanently into a position in the team, even from another team already within Google, they were expected to spend several months with their coworkers in Mountainview. If the office containing most of the on-site team had been in Germany, they would have been expected there instead.
I imagine that it would be amazingly difficult to make a cultural shift in a company with remote workers, even if you imposed the same restrictions in terms of having them work locally, and if, as Marissa seems to be trying to do, you do it by throwing a big switch, that's a rather large up front cost, unless you own Marriott Suites or a similar housing complex.
That said, Marissa is apparently trying to turn Yahoo into a mini-Google. I don't know how this will work out for them, but it probably can't be worse than if they'd taken the purchase offer from Microsoft and become a mini-Microsoft.
My gut feeling is that this isn't going to be terrifically successful; I knew a lot of the people who were initially involved in Yahoo. I also know that a lot of managers dislike managing remotely on general principles; for those managers, the people "allowed" to work remotely were the "rock stars": people who were allowed to be remote not because the managers were OK with it, but because they would otherwise lose the talent. They've already had something of a brain-drain: I know several of the Yahoo top technical people already jumped to Facebook, Google, and other companies, some of them years ago, when it looked like Yahoo was starting to go down hill.
It really remains to be seen what, other than a mini-Google, Marissa is trying to build at Yahoo, but it should be interesting to watch.
It has 200M of RAM available to the system.
Expect that most of it's capability is going to be used in running the display. Here are the stats in case someone else needs to understand how limited it is:
http://www.osnews.com/story/24619/Review_MID_M80003W_Tablet_with_Android_2_2/
I dont remember the last time we had a dept that was so pathetic, inefficient, useless, corrupt and annoying as the Dept. of Homeland Security.
You should not be judging them on your bias, you should be judging them on their results.
They got the boat.
Actually, the point is the only reason you care is because it happened to a rich person. This happens to poor/average people all the time but we don't hear about it and we don't care about it.
I think the reason we care about it is that it's a rights violation and we heard about it. We could give a flying whether it was a mentally ill homeless person camping in Golden Gate Park who had their blanket stolen or someone generally considered morally repugnant, like Larry Ellison, having a yacht stolen
It's kind of hard to care about an event of which you are unaware because some indignant AC fails to successfully communicate about the event in a compelling way, and only offers vague anecdotes about it "happens to poor/average people all the time". Pictures or it didn't happen. Thanks.
What's his net worth? I found something quoting $200 million, which would be well short of the cost of even an unmanned Mars mission. He'll have to get other investors.
I'm pretty sure that really depends on who he's going to have build the equipment, and whether he's willing to do it in a country which will happily ignore patent licensing.
The DC-X was completed in 21 months by a team of 100 people, at a cost of around 60 million in 1991 dollars. That'd be ~$100M today, assuming we learned exactly zilch from the first one. If he's willing to build SSTO vehicles, and he's willing to cut some corners based on what was already learned in previous research, and he's willing to go to a non-US friendly country who won't cooperate on preventing it, the costs go down.
Venezuela could be a candidate, and so could a couple of the former Soviet Republics. A DC-X with a patent-ignoring linear aerospike engine would likely be a pretty sweet vehicle. If he's willing to sell launch services on the things for a while, he could probably raise any additional funding rather quickly. If he's willing to sell completed spacecraft to anyone who wanted to buy one at a hefty markup, he could probably do it even faster.
It's not that far outside the realm of possibility for someone with 1/5th of a billion dollars to consider. Especially if you consider that launch costs have been pretty intentionally inflated up to this point.
You haven't used Chrome, have you...?
Actually, Chrome attempts to force you to login, but you open it in an incognito window instead, and it won't force the login.