What option will people have when their "free" Windows 7 beta runs out? The path of least resistance at that point will be to pay whatever Microsoft says its worth.
My real problem with this approach is that since it is an objective measurement, it implies that it is meaningful. But if it is useful as you said, it is merely a blunt instrument used to force employees to shut up and sit down without relaying how they fail.
I expect more from management, and yes, I have written my fair share of performance reviews.
Here is a novel concept, how about telling the bad employee how they under perform? One of the hallmarks of lazy manager is when one polls the employees who didn't get excellent performance review marks and they all fail for exactly the same reason.
If it were a good metric of performance, it would not require the right hands to determine who gets the beating.
Given the widespread deployment of technology to filter resumes, HR is ripe to accept any new technology that is thrown its way.
Surfacing "thought leaders" over others amounts to rewarding a personality type. I don't think companies have a problem rewarding the people who influence others. The people who do the heavy lifting are rarely recognized.
I was a CS major in 1979 at VT and we had a beginning course that taught principles in pseudo code and programming language and assignments in Labs. Each student was in one of four labs where they taught implementation of these techniques in: C, Pascal, PL1, or Fortran.
This curriculum was way ahead of its time. I have always felt it gave me an amazing foundation. (Unfortunately it was abandoned as the department watered down the undergraduate program to expand the curriculum into grad school)
Yes this is not practical today. This will likely require an atom or two of something else that can mimic a carbon bond in certain conditions and not under other. Open the trap doors, compress the hydrogen, close the trap doors. Now the hydrogen is trapped in the buckyball powder. It would make a nice release mechanism as well.
Given that Apple is slow to approve developers, the only way to test your OpenGL ES program is to Jailbreak the iPhone.
You are supposed to test your program with the iPhone Simulator, called Aspen. The Aspen simulator is part of the free download SDK for the iPhone. However, Aspen does not support OpenGL ES, which is hardware acceleration for cool effects & fast 2D or 3D.
To deploy to the iPhone, Apple must give you a certificate, and they only do that to those paid developers whom they select.
In other words, most game developers can not test their programs because they can not deploy their programs to the iPhone.
I want to play around/learn. I have avoided Jailbreak solutions to date, but I see no other way.
Its not only about the engineer. If it were, Microsoft would (and may) go only as far as "due diligence" and get access to Yahoo proprietary information such as the important employee list.
But I think, Microsoft wants to buy users (Flickr, Delicious, Yahoo Mail, etc.). Google is making Microsoft less relevant, and there is some sort of network effect that makes smaller players nearly impossible to catch up. Anyone can duplicate an Ebay, but you can't duplicate the user base. The success of the services have less to do with the technology, and more to do with the users and where they expect to get their information.
Yes sure the Chinese are busting our chops in manufacturing. But manufacturing != innovation. Your comment is very similar to what many in the US said about Japan in the 80s. "We have to accelerate investment to keep up, or..."
The truth is that innovation is relentless and unless you have a self-sustaining model over the long haul, it will not work. Japan made some advances in AI, but after 10 years their commitment (without a huge payday) dropped off. Everything done during that time has been consumed and refined by the larger research community.
Without a proper respect for Patent law, who other than the government will invest? Without an investment ecosystem, how will it be sustained over the following decades? And if they make a nice profit in the near term in nanotech, don't you think other countries/companies will take notice? This is not about cheap labor.
Welcome Chinese efforts in research, it just makes the game more interesting.
Back in the 80s, Japan thought it could do anything. They were eating our lunch in production of quality cars and decided to invest in AI. The US got all scared that we would fall behind, etc. etc.
Of course the reason we never fell behind is that Money alone is not enough. It turned out that AI research was HARD. Similarly, the Chinese will find that it is a lot harder to create new materials than it is to copy innovation found elsewhere.
"security by locking different doors on different nights, but always leaving one unlocked." A bad analogy IMHO. It is not that you leave things unlocked, but that locking is really hard. This is a measure to cope when all else fails.
Its more like taking a different path to work everyday, to make it harder for enemies to attack you. Wish all you want for enemies to not exist or to have impenitrable armor, but common sense dictates to prepare for the attack anyway.
It's much more likely that NASA knew what is immediately obvious to me, and that you seem to have missed. You can't use the antennae as a solar sail for any noticeable length of time, as the TDRSS birds are *very* heavily tasked and antennae pointing must perforce be driven by operational scheduling with few (if any) windows for 'solar sailing'. NASA (quite reasonably) was probably reluctant to spend money on developing a system that will see little if any use.
There are multiple antenae, for different bands of communication. When I was envolved, it was rare when they were all in use simultaneously. Also, if power acquisition is still beyond requirements, one could use the solar array such that it is not a perfect 90 degrees to the sun. And if you are more adventurous you can pitch them independently ever so slightly... in effect useing them as fan blades.
I was there. They didn't point to research; they didn't talk through the potential; they didn't take the time.
Good Luck trying to get NASA to effect such a change. Maybe this publicity will help.
I had another solution to the same problem, back about 1990. I worked for Contel, my job was to write an expert system to assist in dumping momentum (use propellent to counter build-up caused by attitude gyros spinning too fast) for the TDRSS satellite system. I asked why momentum builds up. Answer: solar wind against antenae. My suggestion was to build models of antenae configurations or solar array that would drive up or down the momentum as needed... in essence to sail back into normal configuration. The potential exists here to NOT USE PROPELLENT, extending the life of satellites dramatically.
I talked to my bosses and to NASA. And basically, I was told to shut up and sit down. They had procedures for dumping momentum. As a sub-contractor we were PAID to dump momentum. And even though they re-orient the antennae array all of the time, they have no procedure to move the antennae to slow dump momentum during times of low utilization.
In other words, NASA didn't want to deal with new ideas, and have to deal with the work associated with it, or overseeing the work in others. Everything is risky when you don't want to bother.
This has since become one of my stories... the moral being that the tech solution is not necessarily the right solution.
The encryption cat is out of the bag, so if you can't own the communication channel, own the computers on either end.
Sure, I'm just delusional. But then again, there was that WMF exploit that according to Security guy Steve Gibson (grc.com and the SecurityNow podcast) inferred that was deliberately put in the code by someone (though he didn't point the finger at MS, some contractor for MS, at the Gov't direction, or anyone else). Before it was patched, it allowed the execution of arbitrary code on a client computer, caused by merely visiting a website that had a WMF icon/image in it.
Sure sound like a useful tool to fight terrorists who communicate on the internet (or anyone else).
What is to stop MS from making Google's website look broken in the next version of IE. Better yet, make it look broken intermittently.
I have seen it happen before. The old netscape download page used to spin and report the server not found in IE. Worked just fine in any other browser.
Slashdot Mirror
If there is no price hike, then I would expect MS to openly refute Dell's statements and make Dell look like the bad guy.
What option will people have when their "free" Windows 7 beta runs out? The path of least resistance at that point will be to pay whatever Microsoft says its worth.
Remove the waveform gobblygook and the article essentially says make the light look like the light coming from another object.
Sounds about like wearing a picture.
And how is "the computer says you suck" helpful in any way. Unless you can communicate what sorts of behavior are wrong and how to improve...
My real problem with this approach is that since it is an objective measurement, it implies that it is meaningful. But if it is useful as you said, it is merely a blunt instrument used to force employees to shut up and sit down without relaying how they fail.
I expect more from management, and yes, I have written my fair share of performance reviews.
Here is a novel concept, how about telling the bad employee how they under perform? One of the hallmarks of lazy manager is when one polls the employees who didn't get excellent performance review marks and they all fail for exactly the same reason.
If it were a good metric of performance, it would not require the right hands to determine who gets the beating.
So basically, you are saying you want a club to beat people with. That way you can choose who gets the beating.
Most of the discussion here is about determining whether the metric is actually valuable.
Given the widespread deployment of technology to filter resumes, HR is ripe to accept any new technology that is thrown its way.
Surfacing "thought leaders" over others amounts to rewarding a personality type. I don't think companies have a problem rewarding the people who influence others. The people who do the heavy lifting are rarely recognized.
I was a CS major in 1979 at VT and we had a beginning course that taught principles in pseudo code and programming language and assignments in Labs. Each student was in one of four labs where they taught implementation of these techniques in: C, Pascal, PL1, or Fortran.
This curriculum was way ahead of its time. I have always felt it gave me an amazing foundation. (Unfortunately it was abandoned as the department watered down the undergraduate program to expand the curriculum into grad school)
Get Lego Mindstorms and download Java for it, called leJos. That way his programs can start simple and still get real feedback.
Modular, on the surface, is a good thing. But is this just an excuse to create lots of versions with confusing pricing (and poor user experience)?
Yes this is not practical today. This will likely require an atom or two of something else that can mimic a carbon bond in certain conditions and not under other. Open the trap doors, compress the hydrogen, close the trap doors. Now the hydrogen is trapped in the buckyball powder. It would make a nice release mechanism as well.
Currently this is science fiction.
Given that Apple is slow to approve developers, the only way to test your OpenGL ES program is to Jailbreak the iPhone.
You are supposed to test your program with the iPhone Simulator, called Aspen. The Aspen simulator is part of the free download SDK for the iPhone. However, Aspen does not support OpenGL ES, which is hardware acceleration for cool effects & fast 2D or 3D.
To deploy to the iPhone, Apple must give you a certificate, and they only do that to those paid developers whom they select.
In other words, most game developers can not test their programs because they can not deploy their programs to the iPhone.
I want to play around/learn. I have avoided Jailbreak solutions to date, but I see no other way.
Its not only about the engineer. If it were, Microsoft would (and may) go only as far as "due diligence" and get access to Yahoo proprietary information such as the important employee list.
But I think, Microsoft wants to buy users (Flickr, Delicious, Yahoo Mail, etc.). Google is making Microsoft less relevant, and there is some sort of network effect that makes smaller players nearly impossible to catch up. Anyone can duplicate an Ebay, but you can't duplicate the user base. The success of the services have less to do with the technology, and more to do with the users and where they expect to get their information.
Yes sure the Chinese are busting our chops in manufacturing. But manufacturing != innovation. Your comment is very similar to what many in the US said about Japan in the 80s. "We have to accelerate investment to keep up, or..."
The truth is that innovation is relentless and unless you have a self-sustaining model over the long haul, it will not work. Japan made some advances in AI, but after 10 years their commitment (without a huge payday) dropped off. Everything done during that time has been consumed and refined by the larger research community.
Without a proper respect for Patent law, who other than the government will invest? Without an investment ecosystem, how will it be sustained over the following decades? And if they make a nice profit in the near term in nanotech, don't you think other countries/companies will take notice? This is not about cheap labor.
Welcome Chinese efforts in research, it just makes the game more interesting.
Back in the 80s, Japan thought it could do anything. They were eating our lunch in production of quality cars and decided to invest in AI. The US got all scared that we would fall behind, etc. etc.
Of course the reason we never fell behind is that Money alone is not enough. It turned out that AI research was HARD. Similarly, the Chinese will find that it is a lot harder to create new materials than it is to copy innovation found elsewhere.
"security by locking different doors on different nights, but always leaving one unlocked." A bad analogy IMHO. It is not that you leave things unlocked, but that locking is really hard. This is a measure to cope when all else fails. Its more like taking a different path to work everyday, to make it harder for enemies to attack you. Wish all you want for enemies to not exist or to have impenitrable armor, but common sense dictates to prepare for the attack anyway.
It's much more likely that NASA knew what is immediately obvious to me, and that you seem to have missed. You can't use the antennae as a solar sail for any noticeable length of time, as the TDRSS birds are *very* heavily tasked and antennae pointing must perforce be driven by operational scheduling with few (if any) windows for 'solar sailing'. NASA (quite reasonably) was probably reluctant to spend money on developing a system that will see little if any use.
There are multiple antenae, for different bands of communication. When I was envolved, it was rare when they were all in use simultaneously. Also, if power acquisition is still beyond requirements, one could use the solar array such that it is not a perfect 90 degrees to the sun. And if you are more adventurous you can pitch them independently ever so slightly... in effect useing them as fan blades.
I was there. They didn't point to research; they didn't talk through the potential; they didn't take the time.
Wow. I have a new end to my story.
Thanks cyclone96, and Draper Labs
Good Luck trying to get NASA to effect such a change. Maybe this publicity will help.
I had another solution to the same problem, back about 1990. I worked for Contel, my job was to write an expert system to assist in dumping momentum (use propellent to counter build-up caused by attitude gyros spinning too fast) for the TDRSS satellite system. I asked why momentum builds up. Answer: solar wind against antenae. My suggestion was to build models of antenae configurations or solar array that would drive up or down the momentum as needed... in essence to sail back into normal configuration. The potential exists here to NOT USE PROPELLENT, extending the life of satellites dramatically.
I talked to my bosses and to NASA. And basically, I was told to shut up and sit down. They had procedures for dumping momentum. As a sub-contractor we were PAID to dump momentum. And even though they re-orient the antennae array all of the time, they have no procedure to move the antennae to slow dump momentum during times of low utilization.
In other words, NASA didn't want to deal with new ideas, and have to deal with the work associated with it, or overseeing the work in others. Everything is risky when you don't want to bother.
This has since become one of my stories... the moral being that the tech solution is not necessarily the right solution.
This exploit did not exist in win3.1, it was added later.
If Gibson is a tool, I'd ask, "A tool of what?". Who is paying him off? Interject a meaningful insult next time.
The encryption cat is out of the bag, so if you can't own the communication channel, own the computers on either end.
Sure, I'm just delusional. But then again, there was that WMF exploit that according to Security guy Steve Gibson (grc.com and the SecurityNow podcast) inferred that was deliberately put in the code by someone (though he didn't point the finger at MS, some contractor for MS, at the Gov't direction, or anyone else). Before it was patched, it allowed the execution of arbitrary code on a client computer, caused by merely visiting a website that had a WMF icon/image in it.
Sure sound like a useful tool to fight terrorists who communicate on the internet (or anyone else).
a world record set in 2 hours, in a pressurized cabin. This guy has the guts to prove that he has money.
I have seen it happen before. The old netscape download page used to spin and report the server not found in IE. Worked just fine in any other browser.
The fact that people are carping about efficiency means that it largely has what they need.