This may only be urban myth, as I don't remember my source. However, I went to school and lived in Houston for 13 years, and had a lot of contact with people from NASA, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is correct.
One of the main reasons I have been told we embraced the Russians for the space station is that several parts of the space station are too heavy for any US rocket or the space shuttle to lift into orbit. The Russians have a rocket that can carry significantly larger payloads into space. As a result, it was cheaper to partner with the Russians to use their rockets.
IIRC, this is also part of the reason we're building backups for the modules that the Russians are building. We are not simply doing this for insurance--we expect the Russian-built modules to fail. So we build backups. We still get to use the Russian rockets. And we don't have to go through the engineering effort to design, build, and test a new rocket (which we probably couldn't do within the timeframe for the space station anyway).
Well, like I say, this is put forth as pure heresay, as these things were only mentioned in casual conversation. It seems plausible to me. And I remember seeing payload levels for the US and Russian launchers years ago, with the Russian launchers having significantly larger capacities. As for the rest? You be the judge...
Exactly what nation are you from? I can't quite figure out how you came up with that figure, assuming you are living in the USA (this is a thread about US politics, after all).
Are you including FICA in that? Are you including it twice, since your employer pays it, too? Hmm...that might cross 52% if you're in the top tax bracket (still a stretch, though...read on...). Are you including sales tax? Inheritance tax? Capital gains tax? Maybe...but these come out after your paycheck, not before.
However, people in the top tax bracket pay, on average, about a 22% nominal federal income tax (i.e. not the tax rate applied to taxable income) rate before FICA. FICA takes out an addition 15.4%, up to some amount. However, if you're in the top tax bracket, only a small amount of your salary is subject to FICA. State taxes can be high in some states, but not enough to make up the difference.
I'm not sure where you came up with 52% from. Unless you live in Europe. But, then, why would you be bitching in a thread about US taxes, then?
Check the spindle speed for each of the drives in question. If the speed at which the disk spins is sufficiently off (between the two drives), data written with one drive may not be easily read on another drive. This can be reliably repeated. At the same time, the same floppy can be easily written and read on the same drive.
I used to see this all the time way back in the days when floppies were everywhere. IIRC a few games actually used this in some forms of software piracy protection, as the Apple ][ had the ability to control the spindle speed in software.
I would bet that this problem has been amplified in modern computers, as floppy drives probably don't get used much in most machines. As for the machines in the machine lab, I would bet they suffer from the opposite problem--they're getting used too much. At any rate, if you can read & write the floppy disk on the each drive separately, and cannot do write on one drive and read on the other, I would suspect that the drive speed is the problem.
Take a look at JSP tag libraries. These allow a programmer to create new tags that can be used by the graphic artist/web page designer types. It hides all the business logic behind the tag. The presentation logic can then be manipulated purely with HTML (with the new tags). Many off-the-shelf web page designers allow the addition of custom tag libraries, as well, allowing the page designers to use the tool of their choice.
That is his stated position. Of course, he once said he had no interest in going beyond mayor (I believe--that was his prior gov't post, right?) before running for governor.
I'm still hoping. The guy is a breath of fresh air.
If you need to see what Gore's stance is on the topic of censorship (beyond the fact that he is married to the "Queen of Censorship"), you need look no farther than his VP choice, Lieberman. Joe is perhaps the most vocal proponent in congress on the topic of governmental and voluntary censorship of the media.
This election pains me. I won't vote for shrub, as I live in Houston, and have seen the effects of his policies first hand. I don't want shrub to win, but I also am having serious misgivings about voting for Gore (particularly on the topic of censorship). Buchanon is a nutcase (enough said). The Libertarian Party (Harry Browne) is actively against government funding of healthcare and education to the poor, so they are out on that one (it should be noted, however, that they are likely to be the only 3rd party on the ballot in all 50 states). I like a lot of Nader's rhetoric, but I am also of the opinion that he will take a number of these issues too far (not privacy, mind you--this topic might just cause me to switch my vote to Nader).
What I think I really want is Jesse Ventura (maybe in 2004?). He is fiercly independant, meaning he takes an intellectual approach to all issues without prejudices or baggage from the party platform. For all the mockery of him as being a pro wrestler, if you listen to him talk, it is rather apparent that he is very intelligent and thoughtful. He is fiscally conservative, socially liberal. He is libertarian on constitutional issues, but not on things like education.
Hmmm...If only it weren't for all those things I did in university, I might join the political fray. Oh well...I think it is society's loss...
Well, gee, last I checked, the Social Security Agency is a government agency (it hasn't been outsourced, has it?). As such, his statement that "The use and sale of social secuiryt numbers by... most government agencies should be banned" is a requirement. It seems to me that he chose his words well, and that he realized that he could not make a blanket statement about government use of social security numbers.
Now, as for the federal law that prohibits the use of SSN as an identifier, this is patently false. What the law says is that you cannot be required to give your security number to organizations other than the SSA. Companies can use your SSN as much as they want. When people ask me for my SSN, I refuse. If they throw a fit, I tell them my SSA is "999-99-9999". That usually gets them very upset. Then I remind them that they cannot require me to give my social.
One time, an application for "instant credit" required my social. If I refused to give it, I had to send my application in by mail (thus negating the "instant credit"). I was pissed, and haven't bought anything at that store since (the store, btw, was Structure, the men's clothing store).
This is a dangerous opinion on these boards--I know there's a lot of non-American readers here. This isn't intended to be inflammatory, so please take it on face value only. And if the moderators think I'm a troll, well, so be it.
My opinion of this result has less to do with money (invested by gov't or whatever) or numbers (more Americans attend post-graduate education). It has to do with a basic tenant of American education. Collegiate education in America is very broad based. Even if you get a Bachelor of Science degree, you are required to take a fair number of courses in the humanities. And most science/math degrees in the US are actually Bachelor of Arts degrees. That is, the degree is meant to be very well rounded. Over half of your university hours must be outside your discipline. Many universities require that these hours not only be outside your discipline, but in humanaties (for math/scientists) or math/science (for humanities majors).
This results in American collegiate graduates having a very broad-based education. Now, that, in itself, may not seem to lead to more and better research at the post-graduate level. However, I think that a key element to innovation and creativity is bringing in elements from outside the discipline being studied. If you're only studying math and science after your 11th year of primary school, then you simply won't have as much exposure to areas outside the discipline. This, in turn, leads to a lower level of innovation and creativity, in my opinion.
The US education is very odd this way. I think it is accurate to say that American high school graduates are *way* behind the average of developed nations throughout the world. And I also think that collegiate graduates are about equal with that of many European nations. What happens afterward is the result of America's broad-based collegiate education, as opposed to most of Europe's (and Britain's) education systems. I single out Britain because I feel that their education system is more broad-based than many other European nations'.
I also think you can't ignore the atmosphere in America where anyone...everyone...has the ability to "strike it rich" in America by putting in some sweat equity and some innovation. This creates an atmosphere where people try to be innovative. This, in turn, leads to more innovation.
Finally, I don't think we can ignore the massive number of important minds that come to the States. The business environment in America attracts some of the best and brightest minds in the world. This, in my opinion, is the reason for the large number of non-Americans that are doing research at American universities.
And, before you reply that I don't know what I'm talking about, I spent half my youth growing up in a variety of countries outside the US. I've spent about as much time in the US as outside the US. Furthermore, before you tell me I'm a pro-American bigot, I think I should add that I prefer to live outside the US. I'm moving to Europe in two weeks, in fact. The better business climate in America leads to a worse environment for living. My wife, for instance, is going from two weeks of paid vacation in the States to six weeks of vacation in Europe. The US standards for vacation and for work hours is, in my opinion, downright oppressive and barbaric. With the good, you also get the bad. It's all a tradeoff.
That is, of course, assuming that you have a THEORETICAL brick wall filter, which don't exist. Using real-world filters, you end up with audible effects *under* 22.05kHz. This is the reason that oversampling was invented.
It has nothing to do with what you hear. It has to do with the filtering. Take a look at my other post--I go into much more detail there. You *need* a sample rate of much higher than 44.1kHz in order to accurately reproduce the input signal using *real* (i.e. not theoretical) filters.
Even if I like the idea of ultra-fidelity, my faith in the Nyquist theorum is too strong to spend a grand and a half on a CD player anytime soon...
You've got it all wrong. You see, humans have an approximate range of hearing between 20Hz and 20KHz (assuming no hearing loss). Now, Nyquist theory says that you must sample at twice the frequency of the highest frequency you wish to preserve. We use 44.1 KHz for this. Sounds good so far, right?
Well, what many neglect to mention about Nyquist theory is that you must run the resulting output through a filter. The filter, according to the theory, is a brick-wall filter. Of course, these things don't exist. Filters have a roll off. As a result, people invented the concept of oversampling. This way, you move the sampling frequency way above 44.1 KHz, and you can put a filter in at, say, 100 KHz. Nice, right? Wrong. Filters have audible effects *well* below their -6dB level.
That said, there's still another problem. People have an approximate dynamic range for their hearing of 120dB. Using 16 bit samples (like CDs), you end up with only 96dB of theoretical dynamic range. So people invented the concept of running a low level noise input when digitizing. This ends up pushing the dynamic range above 96dB. This is how most modern CD players can claim a dynamic range of about 102dB. Sounds good, right? Wrong. You're increasing the dynamic range, but you're also increasing the noise. This is not good.
Of course, for 1980, CDs were pushing the limits of technology. Now they're not. Now we have DVDs. With DVDs and compression, you can get 5 channels of sound digitized with 24-bit sampling at a sample rate of 96kHz. Now that kicks ass. Of course, all the different parties messed around with the standards committees long enough to pretty much kill DVD-Audio (it was finally released a few months ago, but there is way too little material released under the format).
So, if you want a cheap CD player that truly sounds good, I recommend you get a DVD player, and listen to music on DVDs or DVD-As. Even a cheap one can have a pretty poorly built filter and sound OK. Of course, cheaper D2A converters have their own problems, like jitter. But that's a story for another time.
Look, if you don't believe me about this quality issue, go to your local high-end (and I don't mean that they carry Denon and Yamaha...I'm talking about equipment like Wadia and Krell), and ask them to do some listening tests with a Krell compared to your $189 Technics (or whatever). If you don't hear a difference, then you either have hearing loss or you aren't used to paying attention to sound quality. Like many elements of perception (sight, hearing, etc), the more you work the sense, the more acute it becomes.
This is kind of what was used during the filming of The Matrix. A cluster of high-speed digital cameras is placed around the perimeter of the object being filmed, in a semi-circle (or, hidden behind a green "blue screen", in a circle). It allowed them to "slow" time down, move the camera angle around 720 degrees, go "backwards" in time, etc. I suspect that's what this camera is designed for (especially considering the ability to daisy chain the cameras)...
Moderate this one up, guys. His suggestions are right on (although I suggest expanding green cards in lieu of H1B visas).
The problem with H1B visas driving wages down is that workers are locked in to a single employer, with the ever-present fear of deportation looming over their heads. Suggestions 1-3 would tackle the problem directly, without causing a coup the way expansion of green cards would.
Yes, it's true there is a shortage. Yes, it's true that the H1B visa thing is being abused.
I think we ought to open our doors to green cards, not H1B visas. The only thing the H1B visa thing does is drive down wages. Which, in turn, discourages new people from joining the field. Not a good long-term solution.
Of course, if we flooded the US with good, cheap, long-term laborers (instead of short-termers), then people will get taken advantage of. The only answer I can see is unionization. I hate unions, but I fear that this will be the only way that I will ever be able to work a 40 hour week. Not have 5 workers in an office designed for 1. Be able to get a chair that doesn't cause severe upper back pain. The list goes on and on.
I really, really don't like unions. I think they were very useful in their day, but I don't think modern unions are fighting a good fight. The tech industry is one industry that I think needs a union. Where the original purpose for unions is still necessary.
If you can show that (just for instance, I have no idea what the actual numbers might be) 25% of the population has spent significant amounts of time playing Quake III / HalfLife / UT / etc., and that a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes (like 35% or more) are attributable to people in this group, THEN I might begin to believe it.
This is exactly the sort of belief that makes for bad science. If a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes are commited by gamers that play fps, then all you've shown is that people who commit violent crimes like to play video games. It says nothing about the causality.
To make this point another way, during the breast implant lawsuits in the States, medical evidence did not prove any causality between breast implants and all of the medical problems that were attributed to them (note: the lawsuit was still lost by the breast implant manufacturers, though). During the trial, the breast implant manufacturers conducted a study where they showed that people that wear nail polish are more likely to have the medical problems that people that had breast implants. Their point was not that nail polish caused the medical problems (a correlation), but that the was no causality involved.
Correlation and causality are not the same thing. Yet this misconception is common throughout the public (note to medical equipment manufacturers: go with a trial by judge instead of a trial by jury next time).
I'm getting ready to move from the States to the UK. I don't know where to begin with online shopping. Anyone care to give their recommendations of good interantional-friendly stores?
You know, I get a little miffed when these discussions come up, too. Now, IANAPG (planetary geologist). You may ask, why a geologist instead of a meteorologist? Well, put quite simply, the heat generated internally by the earth (radioactive decay and such) seems to have a much greater affect on the temperature of the earth than other affects. They are the ones that seem to do the most work in looking at historical global temperatures. Here are some things they have noticed (these come from an actual planetary geologist--my wife's master's thesis was studying the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet):
1) World sea levels (a very close proxy for world temperatures) are at a relative high-stand--in other words, the world is at the warmer end of its cycle already (sea levels are within 5 ft of their observed historical high point).
2) World temperatures tend to change cataclysmically (sp?). Basically, when an ice age hits, it happens much more quickly than we once thought (hundreds instead of 10s of thousands of years).
3) The world is undergoing one of these said cataclysmic changes. Things are changing very rapidly.
4) The earth is getting warmer. The Western Antarctic Ice Sheet has been there for a *long* time. Now, it is almost completely gone. Not just in the summer...but in the winter, too. Based upon ice cores we've made in the past, this ice sheet has been there since the last high-stand.
Now, this current blip we're seeing in temperatures might be a chance occurrance. It might even be normal by geologic terms. However, given that we're already at a high stand, I'm worried that the equilibrium is changing. Humans have had an impact. The system is being affected by our input. By how much? Is it signicant at all? I don't know. I don't think anyone can really tell for certain.
Anyone that tells you that the world isn't getting warmer is ignoring the obvious clues we have. I think the experts are in agreement that the world *is* getting warmer. The next question is, "is it our fault?". Or, perhaps, "what can/should we do about it?". These are much harder problems to answer. They are more likely the centers for argument.
At any rate, I'm sorry to foment. It just seems like there is some question here on/. about whether the world is getting warmer. There has always been a high level of uninformed "scientists" here making baseless claims. I just want to try to clear up those upon which I am at least somewhat qualified (or, in this case, I am a proxy for someone that is qualified).
Slashdot Mirror
This may only be urban myth, as I don't remember my source. However, I went to school and lived in Houston for 13 years, and had a lot of contact with people from NASA, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is correct.
One of the main reasons I have been told we embraced the Russians for the space station is that several parts of the space station are too heavy for any US rocket or the space shuttle to lift into orbit. The Russians have a rocket that can carry significantly larger payloads into space. As a result, it was cheaper to partner with the Russians to use their rockets.
IIRC, this is also part of the reason we're building backups for the modules that the Russians are building. We are not simply doing this for insurance--we expect the Russian-built modules to fail. So we build backups. We still get to use the Russian rockets. And we don't have to go through the engineering effort to design, build, and test a new rocket (which we probably couldn't do within the timeframe for the space station anyway).
Well, like I say, this is put forth as pure heresay, as these things were only mentioned in casual conversation. It seems plausible to me. And I remember seeing payload levels for the US and Russian launchers years ago, with the Russian launchers having significantly larger capacities. As for the rest? You be the judge...
Exactly what nation are you from? I can't quite figure out how you came up with that figure, assuming you are living in the USA (this is a thread about US politics, after all).
Are you including FICA in that? Are you including it twice, since your employer pays it, too? Hmm...that might cross 52% if you're in the top tax bracket (still a stretch, though...read on...). Are you including sales tax? Inheritance tax? Capital gains tax? Maybe...but these come out after your paycheck, not before.
However, people in the top tax bracket pay, on average, about a 22% nominal federal income tax (i.e. not the tax rate applied to taxable income) rate before FICA. FICA takes out an addition 15.4%, up to some amount. However, if you're in the top tax bracket, only a small amount of your salary is subject to FICA. State taxes can be high in some states, but not enough to make up the difference.
I'm not sure where you came up with 52% from. Unless you live in Europe. But, then, why would you be bitching in a thread about US taxes, then?
Check the spindle speed for each of the drives in question. If the speed at which the disk spins is sufficiently off (between the two drives), data written with one drive may not be easily read on another drive. This can be reliably repeated. At the same time, the same floppy can be easily written and read on the same drive.
I used to see this all the time way back in the days when floppies were everywhere. IIRC a few games actually used this in some forms of software piracy protection, as the Apple ][ had the ability to control the spindle speed in software.
I would bet that this problem has been amplified in modern computers, as floppy drives probably don't get used much in most machines. As for the machines in the machine lab, I would bet they suffer from the opposite problem--they're getting used too much. At any rate, if you can read & write the floppy disk on the each drive separately, and cannot do write on one drive and read on the other, I would suspect that the drive speed is the problem.
Take a look at JSP tag libraries. These allow a programmer to create new tags that can be used by the graphic artist/web page designer types. It hides all the business logic behind the tag. The presentation logic can then be manipulated purely with HTML (with the new tags). Many off-the-shelf web page designers allow the addition of custom tag libraries, as well, allowing the page designers to use the tool of their choice.
Someone has to - besides, it wasn't him who wrote the article.
...it wasn't he who wrote the article.
That is his stated position. Of course, he once said he had no interest in going beyond mayor (I believe--that was his prior gov't post, right?) before running for governor.
I'm still hoping. The guy is a breath of fresh air.
True, true....Never was good with names...
If you need to see what Gore's stance is on the topic of censorship (beyond the fact that he is married to the "Queen of Censorship"), you need look no farther than his VP choice, Lieberman. Joe is perhaps the most vocal proponent in congress on the topic of governmental and voluntary censorship of the media.
This election pains me. I won't vote for shrub, as I live in Houston, and have seen the effects of his policies first hand. I don't want shrub to win, but I also am having serious misgivings about voting for Gore (particularly on the topic of censorship). Buchanon is a nutcase (enough said). The Libertarian Party (Harry Browne) is actively against government funding of healthcare and education to the poor, so they are out on that one (it should be noted, however, that they are likely to be the only 3rd party on the ballot in all 50 states). I like a lot of Nader's rhetoric, but I am also of the opinion that he will take a number of these issues too far (not privacy, mind you--this topic might just cause me to switch my vote to Nader).
What I think I really want is Jesse Ventura (maybe in 2004?). He is fiercly independant, meaning he takes an intellectual approach to all issues without prejudices or baggage from the party platform. For all the mockery of him as being a pro wrestler, if you listen to him talk, it is rather apparent that he is very intelligent and thoughtful. He is fiscally conservative, socially liberal. He is libertarian on constitutional issues, but not on things like education.
Hmmm...If only it weren't for all those things I did in university, I might join the political fray. Oh well...I think it is society's loss...
Well, gee, last I checked, the Social Security Agency is a government agency (it hasn't been outsourced, has it?). As such, his statement that "The use and sale of social secuiryt numbers by ... most government agencies should be banned" is a requirement. It seems to me that he chose his words well, and that he realized that he could not make a blanket statement about government use of social security numbers.
Now, as for the federal law that prohibits the use of SSN as an identifier, this is patently false. What the law says is that you cannot be required to give your security number to organizations other than the SSA. Companies can use your SSN as much as they want. When people ask me for my SSN, I refuse. If they throw a fit, I tell them my SSA is "999-99-9999". That usually gets them very upset. Then I remind them that they cannot require me to give my social.
One time, an application for "instant credit" required my social. If I refused to give it, I had to send my application in by mail (thus negating the "instant credit"). I was pissed, and haven't bought anything at that store since (the store, btw, was Structure, the men's clothing store).
This is a dangerous opinion on these boards--I know there's a lot of non-American readers here. This isn't intended to be inflammatory, so please take it on face value only. And if the moderators think I'm a troll, well, so be it.
My opinion of this result has less to do with money (invested by gov't or whatever) or numbers (more Americans attend post-graduate education). It has to do with a basic tenant of American education. Collegiate education in America is very broad based. Even if you get a Bachelor of Science degree, you are required to take a fair number of courses in the humanities. And most science/math degrees in the US are actually Bachelor of Arts degrees. That is, the degree is meant to be very well rounded. Over half of your university hours must be outside your discipline. Many universities require that these hours not only be outside your discipline, but in humanaties (for math/scientists) or math/science (for humanities majors).
This results in American collegiate graduates having a very broad-based education. Now, that, in itself, may not seem to lead to more and better research at the post-graduate level. However, I think that a key element to innovation and creativity is bringing in elements from outside the discipline being studied. If you're only studying math and science after your 11th year of primary school, then you simply won't have as much exposure to areas outside the discipline. This, in turn, leads to a lower level of innovation and creativity, in my opinion.
The US education is very odd this way. I think it is accurate to say that American high school graduates are *way* behind the average of developed nations throughout the world. And I also think that collegiate graduates are about equal with that of many European nations. What happens afterward is the result of America's broad-based collegiate education, as opposed to most of Europe's (and Britain's) education systems. I single out Britain because I feel that their education system is more broad-based than many other European nations'.
I also think you can't ignore the atmosphere in America where anyone...everyone...has the ability to "strike it rich" in America by putting in some sweat equity and some innovation. This creates an atmosphere where people try to be innovative. This, in turn, leads to more innovation.
Finally, I don't think we can ignore the massive number of important minds that come to the States. The business environment in America attracts some of the best and brightest minds in the world. This, in my opinion, is the reason for the large number of non-Americans that are doing research at American universities.
And, before you reply that I don't know what I'm talking about, I spent half my youth growing up in a variety of countries outside the US. I've spent about as much time in the US as outside the US. Furthermore, before you tell me I'm a pro-American bigot, I think I should add that I prefer to live outside the US. I'm moving to Europe in two weeks, in fact. The better business climate in America leads to a worse environment for living. My wife, for instance, is going from two weeks of paid vacation in the States to six weeks of vacation in Europe. The US standards for vacation and for work hours is, in my opinion, downright oppressive and barbaric. With the good, you also get the bad. It's all a tradeoff.
Oh, yes, I did neglect the problem of aliasing, too. This is another reason for oversampling...Oops...
That is, of course, assuming that you have a THEORETICAL brick wall filter, which don't exist. Using real-world filters, you end up with audible effects *under* 22.05kHz. This is the reason that oversampling was invented.
It has nothing to do with what you hear. It has to do with the filtering. Take a look at my other post--I go into much more detail there. You *need* a sample rate of much higher than 44.1kHz in order to accurately reproduce the input signal using *real* (i.e. not theoretical) filters.
Even if I like the idea of ultra-fidelity, my faith in the Nyquist theorum is too strong to spend a grand and a half on a CD player anytime soon ...
You've got it all wrong. You see, humans have an approximate range of hearing between 20Hz and 20KHz (assuming no hearing loss). Now, Nyquist theory says that you must sample at twice the frequency of the highest frequency you wish to preserve. We use 44.1 KHz for this. Sounds good so far, right?
Well, what many neglect to mention about Nyquist theory is that you must run the resulting output through a filter. The filter, according to the theory, is a brick-wall filter. Of course, these things don't exist. Filters have a roll off. As a result, people invented the concept of oversampling. This way, you move the sampling frequency way above 44.1 KHz, and you can put a filter in at, say, 100 KHz. Nice, right? Wrong. Filters have audible effects *well* below their -6dB level.
That said, there's still another problem. People have an approximate dynamic range for their hearing of 120dB. Using 16 bit samples (like CDs), you end up with only 96dB of theoretical dynamic range. So people invented the concept of running a low level noise input when digitizing. This ends up pushing the dynamic range above 96dB. This is how most modern CD players can claim a dynamic range of about 102dB. Sounds good, right? Wrong. You're increasing the dynamic range, but you're also increasing the noise. This is not good.
Of course, for 1980, CDs were pushing the limits of technology. Now they're not. Now we have DVDs. With DVDs and compression, you can get 5 channels of sound digitized with 24-bit sampling at a sample rate of 96kHz. Now that kicks ass. Of course, all the different parties messed around with the standards committees long enough to pretty much kill DVD-Audio (it was finally released a few months ago, but there is way too little material released under the format).
So, if you want a cheap CD player that truly sounds good, I recommend you get a DVD player, and listen to music on DVDs or DVD-As. Even a cheap one can have a pretty poorly built filter and sound OK. Of course, cheaper D2A converters have their own problems, like jitter. But that's a story for another time.
Look, if you don't believe me about this quality issue, go to your local high-end (and I don't mean that they carry Denon and Yamaha...I'm talking about equipment like Wadia and Krell), and ask them to do some listening tests with a Krell compared to your $189 Technics (or whatever). If you don't hear a difference, then you either have hearing loss or you aren't used to paying attention to sound quality. Like many elements of perception (sight, hearing, etc), the more you work the sense, the more acute it becomes.
This is kind of what was used during the filming of The Matrix. A cluster of high-speed digital cameras is placed around the perimeter of the object being filmed, in a semi-circle (or, hidden behind a green "blue screen", in a circle). It allowed them to "slow" time down, move the camera angle around 720 degrees, go "backwards" in time, etc. I suspect that's what this camera is designed for (especially considering the ability to daisy chain the cameras)...
Moderate this one up, guys. His suggestions are right on (although I suggest expanding green cards in lieu of H1B visas).
The problem with H1B visas driving wages down is that workers are locked in to a single employer, with the ever-present fear of deportation looming over their heads. Suggestions 1-3 would tackle the problem directly, without causing a coup the way expansion of green cards would.
Go into management. ;-)
Yes, it's true there is a shortage. Yes, it's true that the H1B visa thing is being abused.
I think we ought to open our doors to green cards, not H1B visas. The only thing the H1B visa thing does is drive down wages. Which, in turn, discourages new people from joining the field. Not a good long-term solution.
Of course, if we flooded the US with good, cheap, long-term laborers (instead of short-termers), then people will get taken advantage of. The only answer I can see is unionization. I hate unions, but I fear that this will be the only way that I will ever be able to work a 40 hour week. Not have 5 workers in an office designed for 1. Be able to get a chair that doesn't cause severe upper back pain. The list goes on and on.
I really, really don't like unions. I think they were very useful in their day, but I don't think modern unions are fighting a good fight. The tech industry is one industry that I think needs a union. Where the original purpose for unions is still necessary.
If you can show that (just for instance, I have no idea what the actual numbers might be) 25% of the population has spent significant amounts of time playing Quake III / HalfLife / UT / etc., and that a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes (like 35% or more) are attributable to people in this group, THEN I might begin to believe it.
This is exactly the sort of belief that makes for bad science. If a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes are commited by gamers that play fps, then all you've shown is that people who commit violent crimes like to play video games. It says nothing about the causality.
To make this point another way, during the breast implant lawsuits in the States, medical evidence did not prove any causality between breast implants and all of the medical problems that were attributed to them (note: the lawsuit was still lost by the breast implant manufacturers, though). During the trial, the breast implant manufacturers conducted a study where they showed that people that wear nail polish are more likely to have the medical problems that people that had breast implants. Their point was not that nail polish caused the medical problems (a correlation), but that the was no causality involved.
Correlation and causality are not the same thing. Yet this misconception is common throughout the public (note to medical equipment manufacturers: go with a trial by judge instead of a trial by jury next time).
Online? What's the address?
;-)
I don't want a store that caters to American tastes. I'm a career expatriate. I want one that caters to career expatriates
-dan
In fact, unless you make the screen see-thru, you can't make a color laptop w/o backlight with existing tech.
The original Mac laptop had no backlight, as well. Easier to do with monochrome. Just look at your watch (LCD w/ no backlight).
I'm getting ready to move from the States to the UK. I don't know where to begin with online shopping. Anyone care to give their recommendations of good interantional-friendly stores?
I think you're a bit off. I think the even numbered rules go something like:
Rule 2: It's not secure unless it's authenticated
Rule 4: It's not secure unless it's authenticated
...
That said, you're very right in saying, "All you can do is manage the risks. There is no security."
You know, I get a little miffed when these discussions come up, too. Now, IANAPG (planetary geologist). You may ask, why a geologist instead of a meteorologist? Well, put quite simply, the heat generated internally by the earth (radioactive decay and such) seems to have a much greater affect on the temperature of the earth than other affects. They are the ones that seem to do the most work in looking at historical global temperatures. Here are some things they have noticed (these come from an actual planetary geologist--my wife's master's thesis was studying the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet):
/. about whether the world is getting warmer. There has always been a high level of uninformed "scientists" here making baseless claims. I just want to try to clear up those upon which I am at least somewhat qualified (or, in this case, I am a proxy for someone that is qualified).
1) World sea levels (a very close proxy for world temperatures) are at a relative high-stand--in other words, the world is at the warmer end of its cycle already (sea levels are within 5 ft of their observed historical high point).
2) World temperatures tend to change cataclysmically (sp?). Basically, when an ice age hits, it happens much more quickly than we once thought (hundreds instead of 10s of thousands of years).
3) The world is undergoing one of these said cataclysmic changes. Things are changing very rapidly.
4) The earth is getting warmer. The Western Antarctic Ice Sheet has been there for a *long* time. Now, it is almost completely gone. Not just in the summer...but in the winter, too. Based upon ice cores we've made in the past, this ice sheet has been there since the last high-stand.
Now, this current blip we're seeing in temperatures might be a chance occurrance. It might even be normal by geologic terms. However, given that we're already at a high stand, I'm worried that the equilibrium is changing. Humans have had an impact. The system is being affected by our input. By how much? Is it signicant at all? I don't know. I don't think anyone can really tell for certain.
Anyone that tells you that the world isn't getting warmer is ignoring the obvious clues we have. I think the experts are in agreement that the world *is* getting warmer. The next question is, "is it our fault?". Or, perhaps, "what can/should we do about it?". These are much harder problems to answer. They are more likely the centers for argument.
At any rate, I'm sorry to foment. It just seems like there is some question here on