I agree 100% that's what has caused the current situation - competition is tough and students are willing to do it, so, there you go. My aunt is a counsellor (or therapist?) with a PhD in psychology, which took some ridiculous amount of time. She only escaped by making a fuss to the administration, because her advisor never stopped demanding more.
Only briefly does the report address what, to many people, is the most obvious solution: reducing admissions. âoeIn the face of the post-2008 contraction of the academic job market, proposals to reduce the size of graduate education in our fields have been heard,â the committee writes:
The ostensible goal of such a reduction would be to realign the rate of PhD production with the number of tenure-track openings. While the logic of the strategy may seem at first clear, the task force believes it is misguided. Doctoral education is not exclusively for the production of future tenure-track faculty members. Reducing cohort size is tantamount to reducing accessibility.
I think what they are saying is - this won't stop being hyper-competitive. Most will not end up getting that tenured professorship. But a reasonable period in academia of 4 or 5 years for a PhD should be enough to differentiate candidates and put them on that track or not, instead of leading people along for 7+ years before flushing them. Put the rest out of their misery sooner so they can go do whatever they are going to end up doing in industry.
I've never seen a situation in a company this size where the organization was good but one bad engineer was able to release something terrible with no oversight.
Are you assuming one person was fired? 15 people were fired.
One thing I am certain about: It's a mistake to try to replace the A-10 Warthog with F-35s. I don't even understand how the F-35 is supposed to do the same mission.
That's like asking how a rifle can possibly replace a pike, since it can't do the same thing. The F35's sensors and guided munitions are multiple generations more advanced, so it does the same mission from well outside of gun/eyeball range.
All these posts comparing the F35 to much older aircraft like the F18 on the basis of airframe are clueless. It's all about the sensors, weapons, and comms. The part you can see from the outside is just to get you there. (Of course, stealth and mach 1+ without afterburners helps with getting there, too).
Having a fly-off of the F35 against (what exactly?) is like having a race between a Corvette and a Ford Torus. That doesn't necessarily mean the Corvette is a better solution for your needs, and it may well not be a better value. But the differences are big enough to be obvious. Weigh them and make a choice.
Stocks themselves seem increasingly divorced from the purpose of jointly funding an enterprise. I own stock in my 401k. I have no idea who the companies are, I have no voting rights in them, I get no dividend. So what does stock ownership even mean, if it is nothing but the right to sell it on to the next person?
We are all being goaded into owning stocks by low interest rates and the elimination of pensions. My fear is that mass participation *inevitably* turns the stock market into a shooting gallery for elites who have probably already moved on to something else - whatever it is that hedge funds do. That and fleecing the stock market with these high-frequency scams.
So many people are assuming returns will be similar to the 20th century, when the global population was exploding, and only elites owned stock for the most part. I have my doubts. But I have few other options.
It baffles me how this is possible. For example: "John Winborn, chief information officer for the Cowboys, said that at the Thanksgiving Day game against Oakland, nearly 19,000 fans at one time were connected to the stadium's Wi-Fi network through cellphones and other mobile devices.
Over the course of the game, more than 32,000 fans connected."
Wifi only has about 10 channels right? So at least a couple thousand devices per channel at one time. A stadium (including seating) is only about 600 feet long and wide, how many cells can that really be divided into?
Let's assume I have bluetooth on my smartphone so I can listen to music and it gets correctly interrupted by incoming calls, and can give me turn-by-turn directions by GPS. I put it into a cradle on the dash so I can also see a moving map and shoot dashcam video if I want.
As far as I can see, that solves my infotainment "needs." What exactly am I missing out on?
No, but if there is really no watermarking, they are effectively giving up on controlling small-scale commercial use.
They must only be getting licensing fees from other big companies (too big to use it on the sly), and decided to sacrifice any potential of selling it for a couple hundred bucks per pop, in order to cement their market at the high end.
But that Q6600 sucks down 105W / 155W Max, so I am loathe to put it in my home server (which runs all the time) - on top of the electrical costs, it would be a gamble on the PSU and cooling in that box... and what is a more annoying waste of time than an "almost stable" system?
Not reading their minds, but IMHO the use case is action cams. Shoot now, aim later (in postprocessing), and with as much image stabilization as you like. Of course, cropping out 80+% of the image, you want to start with high resolution which is why 4k (or even higher) is good.
It should be noted there is a training wage provision for paying less than "minimum" wage to people with little experience, expected to be mainly teenagers and new immigrants. Quoting the article: "Who would hire a 17-year-old kid for a $15-an-hour job?"
From the article I linked I can't really tell whether this is an obscure provision that will remain little-used, or a big loophole that is bound to be abused by paying people with 5+ years in the same job a "training" wage.
I have been behind the curve on smarthphones too (I think I got it out of my system earlier with Psions/Palms/PocketPCs). But I recently got an $89 LG Android for my wife, and it's so much hardware for so cheap it makes me wonder what could make the $600 worth it? It seems to have pretty much everything, except the 3MP camera is sucky. So, maybe $150 like yours is the sweet spot. But $600? What's in them?
I've been waiting years for the quad-core 65W Socket 775 CPUs to come down. The Q9550S was released in January of 2009 and still goes for over $200. Meanwhile the Core 2 Duo in the system I would upgrade is working fine; I just check ebay a couple times per year to see if I can pick up a quad core for cheap, but no.
Those aren't sat-phones though, that's the point. So you'd need a cellular infrastructure on the ground (or hovering overhead?) to reach out to all those cheap, low power (i.e. cellular) handsets.
At the low altitudes that these will fly, the power necessary to reach the satellites will be much lower than geosynchronous or even Iridium satellites.
Maybe dumb questions, but is there a limit to how low-power a device could be and still reach a satellite, if the satellite had a powerful antenna (akin to a radio telescope) to pick it up? Granted you'd need a large number of such antenna to cover the earth since they'd be highly directional.
Second, is there a way to make a directional antenna small enough to fit in a phone that always points "up"? Part of me says, no, an antenna has to be a certain size to receive a given wavelength (long enough to penetrate atmosphere). But part of me thinks the larger antenna could be simulated with an array of smaller ones, like one little antenna at each corner of a phone, which could be 'aimed' by signal processing to point up.
I think this is the first constructive post to this entire story so far.
Anyways, I was wondering if you were really on the finance side, or still more of an "IT guy who isn't totally clueless"? Do you decide whether deals are going to happen? Do you get a bonus at the end of the year that is based on something closely connected to your own work, that could conceivable make you rich overnight if you landed a whale? Or am I just totally off the mark about what finance really is in the first place?
Baloney. Every nation defines it differently, just as your link states, which is what makes it convenient for spinning fanciful narratives like yours.
Try comparing something more clear-cut: murder rates: it is 4x higher in the US. So you tell me, if you believe your fictional statistic about 8x the violent crime in the UK, but only 1/4 as many people die, that means "violent" crime is 1/32 as lethal in the UK vs the US. I.e., their "violent crime" is 97% less lethal than ours. And then you use that to argue the type of weapon doesn't matter, or that guns reduce suffering. Please.
But we're always being told the criminals will grab the guns and use them against us.
What gun? This is the UK where guns are more restricted. Their firearm-related death rate is 0.25, vs. 10.3 for the US. That is, our death rate from guns is 41 times higher. Printed guns mean something entirely different in a nation that isn't already awash with them, where you can't just go to walmart and buy one.
Before posting that I googled the status and found this page, which specifies "OS X Mavericks v10.9.3 or later" and DOES show the "Larger Text / More Space" (HiDPI) slider being associated with an external display. So I consulted "About This Mac", which says I have OSX 10.9.3. So I re-connected the 4K monitor and tried again before posting, and it still does NOT show me that slider. (I also still don't see it on the 2560x1600 30" display I am using right now). So, I can't explain it. I am skeptical my OSX release has been updated in the last couple weeks, but it says 10.9.3, and the Available Updates only lists updates for iTunes, Safari, iMovie and iPhoto.
I jumped the gun a while ago and got the Dell P2815Q, which is one of those that only do 4K at 30 hz. I can confirm this is not adequate for a large number of uses:)
What surprised me is the poor OSX support for 4K. Windows can scale everything (although I had to manually add a display mode to the NVidia advanced settings to even get 1080p!?), but OSX cannot. I am running it on a recent MacBook Pro 15" with discrete graphics.
The problem is that you cannot chose to run at a lower resolution. Display preferences lists ONLY the native resolution. Using QuickRes (a 3rd party add-on for more resolution choices), none of the lower resolutions work, at least until you go all they way down to 1080p
In particular, you cannot use HiDPI on an external display (where the application sees a lower resolution, but the OS renders fonts at full resolution). (No, it does not help to enable HiDPI with Quartz Debug, nor with the QuickRes "Enable HiDPI" button). So the menus and all applications are absolutely tiny.
You could adjust the size of everything on a per-application basis, but then they won't look right when you're working on the laptop display, unless you use something like QuickRes to run the laptop display at its native resolution. I guess I will try that for a few days. So I mainly use my older, power-hungry 2550x1600 30" displays.
If I could just select the highest of the HiDPI resolutions available for the laptop display in the System Preferences, and mirror *exactly* that to this display, I would be a happy camper. You can't do that.
I understand an upcoming release will improve support with HiDPI on external displays. But as it stands, I could not recommend a 4K display for a Mac - or a Mac for a 4K display.
I disagree that 4k TVs are a gimmick, particularly as they get bigger. Football and soccer would look GREAT on an 80 inch 4k TV. It will change how the games are shot, so you can really get a sense of what everybody is doing instead of following the ball so closely.
Granted, for now the bitrate rather than resolution is the limiting factor, since cable/satellite/broadcast signals aren't even 1080p, they're 1080i or 720p with inadequate bitrates. But the quality of video through Netflix / Amazon Prime right now was almost unimaginable when youtube launched, less than 10 years ago(!) with 320x240 video only, and it seemed doomed to crash the Internet.
I also play split-screen games on my TV with my son and it would be great for that, although not with the current generation of consoles.
Do all of these ultimately result in a corrected transmission? How about a transmission that degrades gracefully instead, so you don't have to re-transmit OR send redundant information that isn't even used unless packets are lost. Each packet would contain only a little low-frequency information , since most of the bits are high-frequency information that will not be missed as much. Maybe your smartphone could receive 4k video broadcasts and just discard 80% of the packets before even decoding them. I'm sure there are encodings that use this technique, so what is it called?
OLED doesn't really need curves to promote it though, the superior display quality and power efficiency will sell OLED once it is cheap and durable enough.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree 100% that's what has caused the current situation - competition is tough and students are willing to do it, so, there you go. My aunt is a counsellor (or therapist?) with a PhD in psychology, which took some ridiculous amount of time. She only escaped by making a fuss to the administration, because her advisor never stopped demanding more.
I think what they are saying is - this won't stop being hyper-competitive. Most will not end up getting that tenured professorship. But a reasonable period in academia of 4 or 5 years for a PhD should be enough to differentiate candidates and put them on that track or not, instead of leading people along for 7+ years before flushing them. Put the rest out of their misery sooner so they can go do whatever they are going to end up doing in industry.
Are you assuming one person was fired? 15 people were fired.
That's like asking how a rifle can possibly replace a pike, since it can't do the same thing. The F35's sensors and guided munitions are multiple generations more advanced, so it does the same mission from well outside of gun/eyeball range.
All these posts comparing the F35 to much older aircraft like the F18 on the basis of airframe are clueless. It's all about the sensors, weapons, and comms. The part you can see from the outside is just to get you there. (Of course, stealth and mach 1+ without afterburners helps with getting there, too).
Having a fly-off of the F35 against (what exactly?) is like having a race between a Corvette and a Ford Torus. That doesn't necessarily mean the Corvette is a better solution for your needs, and it may well not be a better value. But the differences are big enough to be obvious. Weigh them and make a choice.
We are all being goaded into owning stocks by low interest rates and the elimination of pensions. My fear is that mass participation *inevitably* turns the stock market into a shooting gallery for elites who have probably already moved on to something else - whatever it is that hedge funds do. That and fleecing the stock market with these high-frequency scams.
So many people are assuming returns will be similar to the 20th century, when the global population was exploding, and only elites owned stock for the most part. I have my doubts. But I have few other options.
Wifi only has about 10 channels right? So at least a couple thousand devices per channel at one time. A stadium (including seating) is only about 600 feet long and wide, how many cells can that really be divided into?
As far as I can see, that solves my infotainment "needs." What exactly am I missing out on?
They must only be getting licensing fees from other big companies (too big to use it on the sly), and decided to sacrifice any potential of selling it for a couple hundred bucks per pop, in order to cement their market at the high end.
But that Q6600 sucks down 105W / 155W Max, so I am loathe to put it in my home server (which runs all the time) - on top of the electrical costs, it would be a gamble on the PSU and cooling in that box... and what is a more annoying waste of time than an "almost stable" system?
Not reading their minds, but IMHO the use case is action cams. Shoot now, aim later (in postprocessing), and with as much image stabilization as you like. Of course, cropping out 80+% of the image, you want to start with high resolution which is why 4k (or even higher) is good.
From the article I linked I can't really tell whether this is an obscure provision that will remain little-used, or a big loophole that is bound to be abused by paying people with 5+ years in the same job a "training" wage.
I have been behind the curve on smarthphones too (I think I got it out of my system earlier with Psions/Palms/PocketPCs). But I recently got an $89 LG Android for my wife, and it's so much hardware for so cheap it makes me wonder what could make the $600 worth it? It seems to have pretty much everything, except the 3MP camera is sucky. So, maybe $150 like yours is the sweet spot. But $600? What's in them?
I've been waiting years for the quad-core 65W Socket 775 CPUs to come down. The Q9550S was released in January of 2009 and still goes for over $200. Meanwhile the Core 2 Duo in the system I would upgrade is working fine; I just check ebay a couple times per year to see if I can pick up a quad core for cheap, but no.
Dude, when are you going to learn, when you're wearing powerful robotic pincers, quit scratching your donuts.
If this goes much further I could imagine seeing articles about the iPhone 6 on news sites someday!
Those aren't sat-phones though, that's the point. So you'd need a cellular infrastructure on the ground (or hovering overhead?) to reach out to all those cheap, low power (i.e. cellular) handsets.
Maybe dumb questions, but is there a limit to how low-power a device could be and still reach a satellite, if the satellite had a powerful antenna (akin to a radio telescope) to pick it up? Granted you'd need a large number of such antenna to cover the earth since they'd be highly directional.
Second, is there a way to make a directional antenna small enough to fit in a phone that always points "up"? Part of me says, no, an antenna has to be a certain size to receive a given wavelength (long enough to penetrate atmosphere). But part of me thinks the larger antenna could be simulated with an array of smaller ones, like one little antenna at each corner of a phone, which could be 'aimed' by signal processing to point up.
Anyways, I was wondering if you were really on the finance side, or still more of an "IT guy who isn't totally clueless"? Do you decide whether deals are going to happen? Do you get a bonus at the end of the year that is based on something closely connected to your own work, that could conceivable make you rich overnight if you landed a whale? Or am I just totally off the mark about what finance really is in the first place?
Baloney. Every nation defines it differently, just as your link states, which is what makes it convenient for spinning fanciful narratives like yours.
Try comparing something more clear-cut: murder rates: it is 4x higher in the US. So you tell me, if you believe your fictional statistic about 8x the violent crime in the UK, but only 1/4 as many people die, that means "violent" crime is 1/32 as lethal in the UK vs the US. I.e., their "violent crime" is 97% less lethal than ours. And then you use that to argue the type of weapon doesn't matter, or that guns reduce suffering. Please.
What gun? This is the UK where guns are more restricted. Their firearm-related death rate is 0.25, vs. 10.3 for the US. That is, our death rate from guns is 41 times higher. Printed guns mean something entirely different in a nation that isn't already awash with them, where you can't just go to walmart and buy one.
Before posting that I googled the status and found this page, which specifies "OS X Mavericks v10.9.3 or later" and DOES show the "Larger Text / More Space" (HiDPI) slider being associated with an external display. So I consulted "About This Mac", which says I have OSX 10.9.3. So I re-connected the 4K monitor and tried again before posting, and it still does NOT show me that slider. (I also still don't see it on the 2560x1600 30" display I am using right now). So, I can't explain it. I am skeptical my OSX release has been updated in the last couple weeks, but it says 10.9.3, and the Available Updates only lists updates for iTunes, Safari, iMovie and iPhoto.
What surprised me is the poor OSX support for 4K. Windows can scale everything (although I had to manually add a display mode to the NVidia advanced settings to even get 1080p!?), but OSX cannot. I am running it on a recent MacBook Pro 15" with discrete graphics.
The problem is that you cannot chose to run at a lower resolution. Display preferences lists ONLY the native resolution. Using QuickRes (a 3rd party add-on for more resolution choices), none of the lower resolutions work, at least until you go all they way down to 1080p
In particular, you cannot use HiDPI on an external display (where the application sees a lower resolution, but the OS renders fonts at full resolution). (No, it does not help to enable HiDPI with Quartz Debug, nor with the QuickRes "Enable HiDPI" button). So the menus and all applications are absolutely tiny.
You could adjust the size of everything on a per-application basis, but then they won't look right when you're working on the laptop display, unless you use something like QuickRes to run the laptop display at its native resolution. I guess I will try that for a few days. So I mainly use my older, power-hungry 2550x1600 30" displays.
If I could just select the highest of the HiDPI resolutions available for the laptop display in the System Preferences, and mirror *exactly* that to this display, I would be a happy camper. You can't do that.
I understand an upcoming release will improve support with HiDPI on external displays. But as it stands, I could not recommend a 4K display for a Mac - or a Mac for a 4K display.
Granted, for now the bitrate rather than resolution is the limiting factor, since cable/satellite/broadcast signals aren't even 1080p, they're 1080i or 720p with inadequate bitrates. But the quality of video through Netflix / Amazon Prime right now was almost unimaginable when youtube launched, less than 10 years ago(!) with 320x240 video only, and it seemed doomed to crash the Internet.
I also play split-screen games on my TV with my son and it would be great for that, although not with the current generation of consoles.
Do all of these ultimately result in a corrected transmission? How about a transmission that degrades gracefully instead, so you don't have to re-transmit OR send redundant information that isn't even used unless packets are lost. Each packet would contain only a little low-frequency information , since most of the bits are high-frequency information that will not be missed as much. Maybe your smartphone could receive 4k video broadcasts and just discard 80% of the packets before even decoding them. I'm sure there are encodings that use this technique, so what is it called?
OLED doesn't really need curves to promote it though, the superior display quality and power efficiency will sell OLED once it is cheap and durable enough.