Comcast is certainly capable of distributing the channels unencrypted. In fact, they did so for about 3 months here until they flipped the "encrypt everything" switch... Which they did shortly after the FCC granted a waiver allowing them to use a cheap converter box that didn't have a cable card in it. *sigh*
It was called 7 because they were original going to rev the major version to 7.0. Except doing so broke all of the apps/installers out there with dumbass version checks...
The context in which it appears is on Slashdot, so one should assume that there was substantial bias against Microsoft on part of the person submitting the article...
The pastic they used on the pedal just wasn't designed to flex, yet the middle of the pedal would flex upward every time you pressed down on it, and then flex downward as you completed the stroke (if you still have an original pedal, try pressing it with just a sock on and you'll feel it). After awhile the plastic starts to crack along this flex point, eventually failing. Stomping only accelerates the rate of failure -- it isn't the primary cause of failure.
The replacement pedal looks identical to the original pedal, but uses a different spring. The replacement spring's tension seems better matched to the motion of the pedal, and doesn't flex upward while pressing down. The thickness of the spring when fully compressed is also greater than the old spring, and prevents the pedal from flexing down when fully compressed.
That only makes sense in an isolated world where one contract is not related whatsoever to any other contract. The real world isn't like that.
You're really asking the wrong question... the question isn't "how much money is the government spending on x?", rather, the question should be "what is the goverment trying to buy, and what is their criteria for selecting a winner?"
Yup, instead of coming up with a bid that represents their "best" price, they would only need to come up with a bid that is slightly better than the competition. Brilliant! Oh, wait, that's the opposite of what you're after...
No, it's a digg at all of those people who "greatly admire and respect" someone who makes something they like, but demand what they produce for free (or take it without paying).
The correctness of the code you write in an interview on a whiteboard isn't what you are being judged on. Rather, the interviewer is trying to gather insight into your problem solving skills (or at least that's what I'm looking for when I interview someone).
In a problem solving exercise like this, I don't care if you miss a semicolon, put a bracket in the wrong place, or can't remember the exact name/argument list for a function (though depending on what the problem is I'll probably end up telling you the function isn't available). I can teach a smart person how to write better code, but I can't teach someone to be smart.
Some of the basic things I ask myself about the whiteboard question after the interview is over include:
- did you ask questions about the requirements? - what did you do if I give you a requirement that contradicts an assumption or previously defined requirement? - did you just start writing some code or did you take some time to consider multiple solutions? - if I asked you to come up with an alternative/better way to solve the problem, were you able to? - if not, and I describe an alternate way to solve the problem, are you able to implement it? - did your solution consider boundary conditions? - does your solution scale? - do you show a fundamental understanding of programming theory? - can you communicate your ideas and solution effectively?
The next time you get a whiteboard question, remember that correctness isn't necessarily the most important criteria -- it's the problem solving that matters. The best way to succeed with this type of problem is to think out loud and interact with the interviewer.
As a side note, getting a good back and forth going with the interviewer is also the easiest way to "forget" that you are nervious, and you might relax enough to have a bit of fun...
Unfortunately, your monitor only accepts in a 24bpp signal. If you calibrate a wide gamut display, you are limited to a subset of the color selections within that range (and your 6 bit panel with "vivid" color starts to look like a 4 bit panel with tons of banding).
Now, if you've got a monitor that has an internal LUT that can be adjusted by calibration software, this is less of an issue (depending on the design of the monitor). But if you're buying a monitor like that, your already buying a professional piece of kit and your light source will probably be closer to the sRGB colorspace in the first place (or alternatively, you know how to adjust your image workflow to work correctly in the Adobe colorspace...).
On top of that, the "C" model in particular (as opposed to the 226BW) has a 95 CRI backlight, which means the spectrum the backlight produces is much less peaky and closer to natural sunlight. Altogether, the result is more accurate color than I'd get on a CRT. Plus I get 2ms response time so gaming is fine too.
This actually means that your monitor is displaying a large range of color outside of the sRGB colorspace. While the colors on your screen may appear more vivid, they are not an accurate representation of the color contained in the images you are looking at (unless you have setup your image workflow to correctly work and display images in the Adobe colorspace). The result is drastically LESS accurate color than you would get on a CRT.
That "dork" is Pete Peterson, who was one of the original members of the company (number 6 or 7 if I remember correctly) and ended his career as an executive vice president.
People were interested in simple solutions with lots of features while Microsoft was driving the trade journals using their advertising dollar to get the reviewers to demand every false feature they could think of. They knew that if they announced features designed by other software vendors they could stifle sales of those products.
Read the rest of the book the GP referenced. WordPerfect pioneered this type of marketing.
Make the HTML control optional, rewrite the control panel applets and other shell components that need it to work without it,
They don't use the html control anymore.
and change the tight binding between rendering and access control.
There isn't a tight binding between rendering and access control. Permissions are controlled at a process level.
Provide a "legacy" wrapper for it so that old programs can use the insecure API, but make THAT optional as well.
Yeah, I can see the headline now -- "Microsoft declairs security optional".
Make the DRM optional. Vista without DRM would still use the old XP drivers and remain compatible with XP, but wouldn't have the components to run the latest encrypted media, so give us the option... Basic Vista or Video Vista. If you don't install Windows Media Player, you get WMP 2.0 and a WMV3 codec so you can play most video, but if you want to play HD-DVD you need to take on the full thing.
The DRM is optional. DRM free media still plays fine. If your hardware doesn't meet DRM requirements specified by some set of media, that specific set of media does not play. And XP drivers still work (though functionality that requires driver features not available in XP don't work, such as Aero).
* Bundle Interix with ALL versions of Vista. They could call it "A better UNIX than Linux".
Why? Who cares?
Remove the crippling in Terminal Server, allow multiuser use over networks. If you can't afford to upgrade all your computers to Vista you can use the old ones as terminals to your Windows Home Server.
Yeah, that's a reasonable request. Let's take one of the key features in your high dollar item server product and put it in your $60 desktop os. Anti-trust authorities won't have ANY problem with that. And then you should ask yourself what you get out having 3 computers in your house acting as dumb terminals...
Bundle Visual Studio, in the package, the way Apple bundles XCode and all free UNIXes bundle their compilers. Windows is the last hold out of the horror of the '80s... the compiler-less OS.
Yeah, another reasonable request. Give away several hundred dollars of software for free with Windows. That won't raise any anti-trust issues at all. That being said, commandline.Net tools are already on the machine, and if you really want a GUI, you can download the express edition of the VS IDE for free from their website.
"yes, and leave me alone for the next few minutes while I actually try to get some stuff done with out this freaking thing harassing me every time I try to change a system setting" option.
Do you people even think about what you're asking for? With the "feature" you request, all a piece of malware would need to do to obtain admin privs is to periodically request admin rights until it succeeds... (because eventually, it will request those priveleges during the window you said "leave me alone for the next few minutes while I get some stuff done")
Slashdot Mirror
Comcast is certainly capable of distributing the channels unencrypted. In fact, they did so for about 3 months here until they flipped the "encrypt everything" switch... Which they did shortly after the FCC granted a waiver allowing them to use a cheap converter box that didn't have a cable card in it. *sigh*
It was called 7 because they were original going to rev the major version to 7.0. Except doing so broke all of the apps/installers out there with dumbass version checks...
Marketshare wouldn't be increasing as a result of those mechanisms -- they've existed for years before Bing and didn't help "live search" marketshare.
Of course. Slashdot: the Fox News of IT.
...or you could just click on the formats link and download the mp4... but burning karma bitching about Silverlight sounds like more fun.
The context in which it appears is on Slashdot, so one should assume that there was substantial bias against Microsoft on part of the person submitting the article...
I don't suppose it occured to you that the Microsoft statement refers to the patents they're trying to license TO TomTom, did it?
My pedal broke and I didn't stomp on it.
The pastic they used on the pedal just wasn't designed to flex, yet the middle of the pedal would flex upward every time you pressed down on it, and then flex downward as you completed the stroke (if you still have an original pedal, try pressing it with just a sock on and you'll feel it). After awhile the plastic starts to crack along this flex point, eventually failing. Stomping only accelerates the rate of failure -- it isn't the primary cause of failure.
The replacement pedal looks identical to the original pedal, but uses a different spring. The replacement spring's tension seems better matched to the motion of the pedal, and doesn't flex upward while pressing down. The thickness of the spring when fully compressed is also greater than the old spring, and prevents the pedal from flexing down when fully compressed.
That only makes sense in an isolated world where one contract is not related whatsoever to any other contract. The real world isn't like that.
You're really asking the wrong question ... the question isn't "how much money is the government spending on x?", rather, the question should be "what is the goverment trying to buy, and what is their criteria for selecting a winner?"
Yup, instead of coming up with a bid that represents their "best" price, they would only need to come up with a bid that is slightly better than the competition. Brilliant! Oh, wait, that's the opposite of what you're after...
No, it's a digg at all of those people who "greatly admire and respect" someone who makes something they like, but demand what they produce for free (or take it without paying).
But what's the point of having a chip implanted when an external device is still required?
The correctness of the code you write in an interview on a whiteboard isn't what you are being judged on. Rather, the interviewer is trying to gather insight into your problem solving skills (or at least that's what I'm looking for when I interview someone).
In a problem solving exercise like this, I don't care if you miss a semicolon, put a bracket in the wrong place, or can't remember the exact name/argument list for a function (though depending on what the problem is I'll probably end up telling you the function isn't available). I can teach a smart person how to write better code, but I can't teach someone to be smart.
Some of the basic things I ask myself about the whiteboard question after the interview is over include:
- did you ask questions about the requirements?
- what did you do if I give you a requirement that contradicts an assumption or previously defined requirement?
- did you just start writing some code or did you take some time to consider multiple solutions?
- if I asked you to come up with an alternative/better way to solve the problem, were you able to?
- if not, and I describe an alternate way to solve the problem, are you able to implement it?
- did your solution consider boundary conditions?
- does your solution scale?
- do you show a fundamental understanding of programming theory?
- can you communicate your ideas and solution effectively?
The next time you get a whiteboard question, remember that correctness isn't necessarily the most important criteria -- it's the problem solving that matters. The best way to succeed with this type of problem is to think out loud and interact with the interviewer.
As a side note, getting a good back and forth going with the interviewer is also the easiest way to "forget" that you are nervious, and you might relax enough to have a bit of fun...
The software they're demoing is the same software they've been showing on the Surface, which is hardly a copy of the iPhone...
Unfortunately, your monitor only accepts in a 24bpp signal. If you calibrate a wide gamut display, you are limited to a subset of the color selections within that range (and your 6 bit panel with "vivid" color starts to look like a 4 bit panel with tons of banding).
Now, if you've got a monitor that has an internal LUT that can be adjusted by calibration software, this is less of an issue (depending on the design of the monitor). But if you're buying a monitor like that, your already buying a professional piece of kit and your light source will probably be closer to the sRGB colorspace in the first place (or alternatively, you know how to adjust your image workflow to work correctly in the Adobe colorspace...).
On top of that, the "C" model in particular (as opposed to the 226BW) has a 95 CRI backlight, which means the spectrum the backlight produces is much less peaky and closer to natural sunlight. Altogether, the result is more accurate color than I'd get on a CRT. Plus I get 2ms response time so gaming is fine too.
This actually means that your monitor is displaying a large range of color outside of the sRGB colorspace. While the colors on your screen may appear more vivid, they are not an accurate representation of the color contained in the images you are looking at (unless you have setup your image workflow to correctly work and display images in the Adobe colorspace). The result is drastically LESS accurate color than you would get on a CRT.
You do realize that the GP's post was almost 100% sarcasm, right?
That "dork" is Pete Peterson, who was one of the original members of the company (number 6 or 7 if I remember correctly) and ended his career as an executive vice president.
People were interested in simple solutions with lots of features while Microsoft was driving the trade journals using their advertising dollar to get the reviewers to demand every false feature they could think of. They knew that if they announced features designed by other software vendors they could stifle sales of those products.
Read the rest of the book the GP referenced. WordPerfect pioneered this type of marketing.
You do realize that the speed of the drive isn't limited to the speed of a single chip, right? You know, they can wire the things up in parallel...
Yeah, better to focus on the one piece of correct information and ignore remaining 90% taken out of context. TFGTPDF.
The quotes in the summary explain why Windows XP drivers would not work; they do not state that driver model changes were made right before RTM.
Make the HTML control optional, rewrite the control panel applets and other shell components that need it to work without it,
.Net tools are already on the machine, and if you really want a GUI, you can download the express edition of the VS IDE for free from their website.
They don't use the html control anymore.
and change the tight binding between rendering and access control.
There isn't a tight binding between rendering and access control. Permissions are controlled at a process level.
Provide a "legacy" wrapper for it so that old programs can use the insecure API, but make THAT optional as well.
Yeah, I can see the headline now -- "Microsoft declairs security optional".
Make the DRM optional. Vista without DRM would still use the old XP drivers and remain compatible with XP, but wouldn't have the components to run the latest encrypted media, so give us the option... Basic Vista or Video Vista. If you don't install Windows Media Player, you get WMP 2.0 and a WMV3 codec so you can play most video, but if you want to play HD-DVD you need to take on the full thing.
The DRM is optional. DRM free media still plays fine. If your hardware doesn't meet DRM requirements specified by some set of media, that specific set of media does not play. And XP drivers still work (though functionality that requires driver features not available in XP don't work, such as Aero).
* Bundle Interix with ALL versions of Vista. They could call it "A better UNIX than Linux".
Why? Who cares?
Remove the crippling in Terminal Server, allow multiuser use over networks. If you can't afford to upgrade all your computers to Vista you can use the old ones as terminals to your Windows Home Server.
Yeah, that's a reasonable request. Let's take one of the key features in your high dollar item server product and put it in your $60 desktop os. Anti-trust authorities won't have ANY problem with that. And then you should ask yourself what you get out having 3 computers in your house acting as dumb terminals...
Bundle Visual Studio, in the package, the way Apple bundles XCode and all free UNIXes bundle their compilers. Windows is the last hold out of the horror of the '80s... the compiler-less OS.
Yeah, another reasonable request. Give away several hundred dollars of software for free with Windows. That won't raise any anti-trust issues at all. That being said, commandline
"yes, and leave me alone for the next few minutes while I actually try to get some stuff done with out this freaking thing harassing me every time I try to change a system setting" option.
Do you people even think about what you're asking for? With the "feature" you request, all a piece of malware would need to do to obtain admin privs is to periodically request admin rights until it succeeds... (because eventually, it will request those priveleges during the window you said "leave me alone for the next few minutes while I get some stuff done")
It would also explain why BluRay players using BDJ boot much faster than HD-DVD players ...
Wait, no it doesn't. Because BluRay boot times are 2-3 times longer (8 minutes!) than HD-DVD drives.