The airports in the area already have radar coverage. And there are tons of aircraft flying right past DC already on their way to the airport - not 300 miles out, they're more like 3 miles or 15-20 seconds from some targets. Then there's the nearly invisible cable dangling from the sky - wouldn't want to hit that. What is the real purpose of these blimps? Either pork or birds-eye surveillance of the area or both.
Handset manufacturers should stop screwing with it so much, if they used pure android it wouldnt be so much work to get updates out.
Google should stop screwing with it so much and then they wouldn't need updates! And you should stop blaming the customers (handset makers)
Seriously, you folks in "the tech industry" have no idea what product quality and reliability are. Try writing software for a car. Yes, it's much smaller in scope, but it has to be complete. We ship modules that are never updated (ROM parts anyone?) and in some cases are turned on and never off until you disconnect the battery (i.e. sleep rather than full reset). We have people who swear you must refresh hardware configuration registers periodically because cosmic rays or some shit will occasionally disable a feature indefinitely. I have not personally encountered such an issue but I know people who have. But that shit HAS to work, and it has to work for decades without updates.
My phone runs Android 2.1 because it won't update if I tell it to, and it still makes calls. I have better things to do than tech support for a phone. It's a PHONE it shouldn't need updates.
Seriously, the processor powering the computer most are using to read the statement about the lack of invention is the result of dozens of fundamental discoveries and inventions over the last decade.
No. No they're not. And that's what the author means. The transistor was a fundamental invention. Photo lithography for printing transistors was a fairly fundamental improvement on the transistor. Now I agree that there are lots of things needed to continue shrinking circuits. Dual patterning, tri-gate, materials improvements. And there are processor design improvements as well, some of them kinda fancy. But this is ALL incremental improvement on the integrated circuit which is over 40 years old now.
We had bulletin boards on 8-bit processors using 1200 baud modems in the 1980s. Slashdot is nothing more than a fancy HTML BBS. Where is the "fundamental" change?
It wasn't outsourcing the production, it was outsourcing the design that was the problem. Particularly outsourcing the design of subsystems to different suppliers. You don't know if the pieces will work together until they come back home. It's not like an engineer at supplier 1 can walk down the hall and talk to a guy working on a part at supplier 2, but this does happen when you're all under one roof.
Funny, to me the Battery Management System (BMS) is part of the battery. It's located in the same box and has connections to every Nth cell in the chain (possibly with N=1). FYI with these large battery packs you need to monitor individual cell voltages to ensure none of them are over/under charged over their life, and every cell is a little different. Another function of the BMS can also be charge balancing between cells in the chain.
TL;DR they're still looking at stuff inside the big burnt box.
Computer science has a meaning for more than just students, and that meaning lies primarily within the domain of mathematics. What gets taught in the name of computer science depends on the institution doing the teaching.
To some extent I feel like the mathematicians are trying to make themselves more important by claiming some new territory. There is plenty of overlap between what I consider (IMHO) computer science and math. Turing machines, computability, automata. Those are all mathematical concepts that have loose relevance in the real world of computers. You can argue their importance, but nobody actually uses Turing machines outside their analysis - I still consider that mathematics. Likewise, math has given us great things like public key encryption, which I still consider math. Mathematics has given us the framework for 3D computer graphics which is an interesting thing, not sure what to call it - I'm sure the "mathematicians" consider it basic analytic geometry - they may perk up a little if you claim to use quaternions which were a purely mathematical construct prior to their practical application in graphics.
If you want to claim those abstract mathematical concepts are the foundation of computing, go ahead, but you're not doing society any favors. We use real processors and write real software to solve real problems. Give me an analysis of the differences between x86, ARM, and the JVM that goes beyond "they are all turing complete" and you might find less resistance to claiming computer science is math.
There is plenty of overlap, but IMHO CS isn't really math. It's like the old cartoon where psychology is really biology, is really chemistry, is really physics, which is really math. When you think like that, everything is math. But that's only how mathematicians think.
Where I went to college, CS was taught within the department of engineering and computer science. Mathematics was a different area - although the computer graphics courses were taught in the math building by a math professor. Most CS was over in engineering.
It seems obvious that the particles are an energy storage material. OK, since oxygen is used in the full set of reactions I suppose the particles are also acting as fuel. Regardless, they are consumed in the process. You start with water, and end with water, except a bunch of oxygen has reacted with these particles. IMHO this is still somewhat interesting.
Apart from that some people whine about everything, they're just filled with this soul-sapping pessimism and aura of negativity that everything is wrong and hopeless and you should just give up before you've even tried and that this is worthless and a waste of effort and they told you so.
You realize this describes the GNome3 developers attitude toward conventional desktops right?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
I got this idea man... I did LSD like Steve Jobs, and then I used a iPhone, and then Android. Man, this shit is like Star Trek man... All this old crusty shit is for old people man. It's so wrong and hopeless. You gotta shift your fucking mindset to the new millenium dude it's just so righteous. Never mind all this shit you can't do. Never mind how awkward it is. Nobody actually runs multiple apps man - everything should be full screen dude, even on multiple 27" monitors dude - it's like... like... fuck I dunno, but it works with touch man. Fucking Touch!
Sorry about that last part, I really couldn't help myself. I've been using Fedora with Gnome since FC3 and all these new misguided developments are just making me want to cry.
The computer world is bifurcating and stupid developers at Gnome, Fedora, Ubuntu, and Microsoft don't seem to get that. Can't all the mobile/touch shit be a different UI like KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE, etc?
Hype is cheap. Designing and manufacturing a flying building is expensive. When there is competition and planning these purchases happens years in advance, you need to get the customers ready. Unfortunate, but that's reality.
Those type of people will say everything is OK right up to the point where the official line is that its not. If the FAA isn't grounding planes, they are safe. The minute they do ground them, the message changes. When it comes to safety, never trust someone saying "don't worry" unless they can back it up.
Seriously Slashdot, you may be good at math, but you suck at accounting.
And accountants are ruining things. Passing that fraction of a cent on to the passengers is not going to change anything. I'm all for saving weight on planes, but 18 pounds (out of how many hundred thousand?) for safer battery seems obvious if you've looked into the hazards with batteries. This is why artificial sweeteners are all the rage. If it's 100 times sweeter than sugar you can but 10 pounds instead of 1000 pounds - a win even and 10x the price. When you're willing to multiply a tiny percentage savings by large volumes and claim thousands or millions of dollars in savings you should stop and ask yourself - am I that close to going out of business? If so, you've got other problems.
That said, I have no doubt Boeing will sort the problems and normal service will be resumed shortly.
You are an optimist. The auto industry has been learning the lessons of high energy-density batteries for a long time now and you still see news about some issues in unusual circumstances. If they can pin these incidents on a single specific flaw that has a fairly simple remedy they could be flying by February. Maybe. IMHO. For example, someone suggested they are charging too fast - that may be fairly simple to fix at the expense of charging time, but it would get them back in the air. If it turns out to be something structural (hard landing causing physical damage to cells) it could be quite a while, though there might be some quick fixes you may not like - put foam rubber under that box! Time will tell both what the issue is and when they fly again.
But pituitary damage can cause a cessation of growth. Hormone levels drop and growth stops. Hormone treatment can make them resume - I know someone on this treatment right now. However, they checked all (known) hormone levels and she appears normal, so no explanation. OTOH, the person I know is not responding as quickly to the treatment as doctors predicted. So it seems they don't fully understand these mechanisms. So sure, brain damage of just the right type could plausibly cause this. Granted, my justification is better than the parent post;-)
If life has taught me anything it's that in most cases there are no coincidences. The coma and such that happened to her around the time she stopped growing are significant. They may not be the cause, but they most almost certainly share a common cause.
I know a kid who is taking hormones to reach full size because the endocrine system was damaged by radiation. There is apparently a time limit on that, you have to reach a certain physical age before a certain chronological age or you get stuck. I'm not sure they even understand why that is so, just that it is so. Also, the treatment while working, isn't going so well - kid may be a little short - and they don't know why. All the levels are right with treatment.
I'm going with 50/50 that there is even a genetic cause to this unique case. And if so, I'd go with under 10 percent chance it's a mutation in coding DNA. But please do continue, if it is DNA the discovery should be well worth the effort.
"I have an idea for an app" is exactly what riles up programmers. Ideas are a dime a dozen. If you, the "nontechnical person", do your job right, then you'll find a competent and cooperative programmer.
GOOD ideas are NOT a dime a dozen. If they were, every programmer would have a successful business simply by implementing their own good ideas. I've been programming for decades and have a couple ideas I think are really good. One has been described as a "billion dollar idea" by a friend of mine. We don't have the type of experience necessary to bring it to life on our own (without huge learning). We do embedded software and the idea is web/network/mobile. Another neat idea I've got could be put together by a competent Android programmer in a week or two - again, I haven't tried 'droid and when I have looked at Java it made me cringe. This one seems less likely to be a blockbuster, but the risk/reward is still good 'cause it should be relatively easy.
So what do you propose I do? My best bet is probably to bite the bullet and learn Android programming on the simple app. That would then provide some experience for the mobile part of the other. Or should I hire an Android programmer for the simple app? And would they be an asshole because all I'd provide is the "idea" while they write the code for a price?
Yeah, I'm starting to think they're a pump-n-dump stock. They keep talking about the price of rare earths and how they have this mine, and how they just need to clear some government hurdle... It's always right around the corner. Dude, it's their own fucking mine, just ramp production back up and show me the money. They need to stop talking about it and start producing. Been a few years now.
I was asked to interview a guy that my boss wanted to hire from another part of the company. I gave him FizzBuzz in the interview. He spent a long time and did not complete it - he did have stuff running and partly working. He's a young guy and was really distraught over the whole thing. I recommended we not hire him "guy can't code" but they did anyway. Turns out he's actually not bad in normal circumstances, and rather good at some other things (which is why they wanted him in the first place). So NO, you should not base a decision on a single programming task. Now had he failed FizzBuzz AND shown no other promising characteristics they would not have hired him.
BTW he sits next to me now and his nick is Fizz...
Yep, I've heard the stories about standard panel size. But I'd rather have a 30" 720 than a 32" 768. Shit, just give me a mode that puts black around the 720 image on the 768 TV. Nope. The rescaling really does hurt image quality. Notice that ALL 720s are like this now and NONE of the 1080s have an unusual panel resolution.
1080 on a 720 TV requires a scaling of 1.5 to 1 which is relatively easy. Going from 720 to 768 requires a stretch of 16/15 which is NOT easy. Also going from 720 (most broadcast TV in the US) to 1080 is a multiplier of 1.5. So OTA and bluray will look great on a 1080 TV but will require an unusual scaling to reach 768. I used to have an actual 720 DLP TV and it looked quite fantastic compared to the 768 LCD that replaced it, and that's not due to the tech difference. This is why many people see a difference between 1080 and 720 TVs. Try rescaling a nice clear image by 16/15 and see what happens.
The real problem is that the resolution is exactly double that of 1920x1080. This means scaling up or down will work very well and people won't be able to tell the difference between this and 1080p. You know, because all the 720 TVs are actually 1366x768 which means images have to be smeared to shit, making 1080 TV look so much better (even with OTA 720 shows). And yes, I'm claiming industry-wide effort to make 1080 appear visibly better than 720. Or perhaps the 1080 sets will start to be 1152 to make 4K look better than regular HD even with 1080 content.
With a theme park, at least, you can also choose to avoid the place entirely
Yeah, but when you're already booked and just spent 2 days driving 1200 miles to get there, already checked in and spent one night at a resort, then show up at a theme park where they ask you to stick a finger in a scanner.... That's not really the time to opt-out. Thanks Disney World.
Yes the posters attitude may be the problem, and yes classes in people skills would be helpful but honestly the biggest problem here seems to me to be convincing HR that the poster can do the job. A problem I think plagues many people who aren't specifically trained for a given job.
And convincing them that he can do the job without being a problem. Often (not always) PhDs are considered (or consider themselves) really good at stuff because of their credentials. Even stuff outside their major. In the general case that is not so, but it can lead to arrogance, or preferential treatment, both of which are bad for the work environment. I had a manager tell me he'd only ever hire a PhD if he wanted someone with that specific area of knowledge due to this phenomenon.
I've worked with a number of PhDs mostly working in areas of their education and it's been mostly great with a few that had ego issues. OTOH many of them were working in their area of expertise and were quite good;-) Come to think of it, the problem guys were working outside their area of expertise.
Apparently - if you believe the LERN (cold) fusion folks, the easy path to gold would be so type of platinum-hydrogen fusion. No exactly cheap precursors;-)
Slashdot Mirror
The airports in the area already have radar coverage. And there are tons of aircraft flying right past DC already on their way to the airport - not 300 miles out, they're more like 3 miles or 15-20 seconds from some targets. Then there's the nearly invisible cable dangling from the sky - wouldn't want to hit that. What is the real purpose of these blimps? Either pork or birds-eye surveillance of the area or both.
Google should stop screwing with it so much and then they wouldn't need updates! And you should stop blaming the customers (handset makers)
Seriously, you folks in "the tech industry" have no idea what product quality and reliability are. Try writing software for a car. Yes, it's much smaller in scope, but it has to be complete. We ship modules that are never updated (ROM parts anyone?) and in some cases are turned on and never off until you disconnect the battery (i.e. sleep rather than full reset). We have people who swear you must refresh hardware configuration registers periodically because cosmic rays or some shit will occasionally disable a feature indefinitely. I have not personally encountered such an issue but I know people who have. But that shit HAS to work, and it has to work for decades without updates.
My phone runs Android 2.1 because it won't update if I tell it to, and it still makes calls. I have better things to do than tech support for a phone. It's a PHONE it shouldn't need updates.
No. No they're not. And that's what the author means. The transistor was a fundamental invention. Photo lithography for printing transistors was a fairly fundamental improvement on the transistor. Now I agree that there are lots of things needed to continue shrinking circuits. Dual patterning, tri-gate, materials improvements. And there are processor design improvements as well, some of them kinda fancy. But this is ALL incremental improvement on the integrated circuit which is over 40 years old now.
We had bulletin boards on 8-bit processors using 1200 baud modems in the 1980s. Slashdot is nothing more than a fancy HTML BBS. Where is the "fundamental" change?
It wasn't outsourcing the production, it was outsourcing the design that was the problem. Particularly outsourcing the design of subsystems to different suppliers. You don't know if the pieces will work together until they come back home. It's not like an engineer at supplier 1 can walk down the hall and talk to a guy working on a part at supplier 2, but this does happen when you're all under one roof.
Funny, to me the Battery Management System (BMS) is part of the battery. It's located in the same box and has connections to every Nth cell in the chain (possibly with N=1). FYI with these large battery packs you need to monitor individual cell voltages to ensure none of them are over/under charged over their life, and every cell is a little different. Another function of the BMS can also be charge balancing between cells in the chain.
TL;DR they're still looking at stuff inside the big burnt box.
To some extent I feel like the mathematicians are trying to make themselves more important by claiming some new territory. There is plenty of overlap between what I consider (IMHO) computer science and math. Turing machines, computability, automata. Those are all mathematical concepts that have loose relevance in the real world of computers. You can argue their importance, but nobody actually uses Turing machines outside their analysis - I still consider that mathematics. Likewise, math has given us great things like public key encryption, which I still consider math. Mathematics has given us the framework for 3D computer graphics which is an interesting thing, not sure what to call it - I'm sure the "mathematicians" consider it basic analytic geometry - they may perk up a little if you claim to use quaternions which were a purely mathematical construct prior to their practical application in graphics.
If you want to claim those abstract mathematical concepts are the foundation of computing, go ahead, but you're not doing society any favors. We use real processors and write real software to solve real problems. Give me an analysis of the differences between x86, ARM, and the JVM that goes beyond "they are all turing complete" and you might find less resistance to claiming computer science is math.
There is plenty of overlap, but IMHO CS isn't really math. It's like the old cartoon where psychology is really biology, is really chemistry, is really physics, which is really math. When you think like that, everything is math. But that's only how mathematicians think.
Where I went to college, CS was taught within the department of engineering and computer science. Mathematics was a different area - although the computer graphics courses were taught in the math building by a math professor. Most CS was over in engineering.
It seems obvious that the particles are an energy storage material. OK, since oxygen is used in the full set of reactions I suppose the particles are also acting as fuel. Regardless, they are consumed in the process. You start with water, and end with water, except a bunch of oxygen has reacted with these particles. IMHO this is still somewhat interesting.
You realize this describes the GNome3 developers attitude toward conventional desktops right?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
I got this idea man... I did LSD like Steve Jobs, and then I used a iPhone, and then Android. Man, this shit is like Star Trek man... All this old crusty shit is for old people man. It's so wrong and hopeless. You gotta shift your fucking mindset to the new millenium dude it's just so righteous. Never mind all this shit you can't do. Never mind how awkward it is. Nobody actually runs multiple apps man - everything should be full screen dude, even on multiple 27" monitors dude - it's like... like... fuck I dunno, but it works with touch man. Fucking Touch!
Sorry about that last part, I really couldn't help myself. I've been using Fedora with Gnome since FC3 and all these new misguided developments are just making me want to cry.
The computer world is bifurcating and stupid developers at Gnome, Fedora, Ubuntu, and Microsoft don't seem to get that. Can't all the mobile/touch shit be a different UI like KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE, etc?
Hype is cheap. Designing and manufacturing a flying building is expensive. When there is competition and planning these purchases happens years in advance, you need to get the customers ready. Unfortunate, but that's reality.
Those type of people will say everything is OK right up to the point where the official line is that its not. If the FAA isn't grounding planes, they are safe. The minute they do ground them, the message changes. When it comes to safety, never trust someone saying "don't worry" unless they can back it up.
And accountants are ruining things. Passing that fraction of a cent on to the passengers is not going to change anything. I'm all for saving weight on planes, but 18 pounds (out of how many hundred thousand?) for safer battery seems obvious if you've looked into the hazards with batteries. This is why artificial sweeteners are all the rage. If it's 100 times sweeter than sugar you can but 10 pounds instead of 1000 pounds - a win even and 10x the price. When you're willing to multiply a tiny percentage savings by large volumes and claim thousands or millions of dollars in savings you should stop and ask yourself - am I that close to going out of business? If so, you've got other problems.
You are an optimist. The auto industry has been learning the lessons of high energy-density batteries for a long time now and you still see news about some issues in unusual circumstances. If they can pin these incidents on a single specific flaw that has a fairly simple remedy they could be flying by February. Maybe. IMHO. For example, someone suggested they are charging too fast - that may be fairly simple to fix at the expense of charging time, but it would get them back in the air. If it turns out to be something structural (hard landing causing physical damage to cells) it could be quite a while, though there might be some quick fixes you may not like - put foam rubber under that box! Time will tell both what the issue is and when they fly again.
Can Baxter make a burrito? Look out Taco Bell employees.
Lots of people do this today. The sad thing is they make them show up to the office 5 days a week.
But pituitary damage can cause a cessation of growth. Hormone levels drop and growth stops. Hormone treatment can make them resume - I know someone on this treatment right now. However, they checked all (known) hormone levels and she appears normal, so no explanation. OTOH, the person I know is not responding as quickly to the treatment as doctors predicted. So it seems they don't fully understand these mechanisms. So sure, brain damage of just the right type could plausibly cause this. Granted, my justification is better than the parent post ;-)
If life has taught me anything it's that in most cases there are no coincidences. The coma and such that happened to her around the time she stopped growing are significant. They may not be the cause, but they most almost certainly share a common cause.
I know a kid who is taking hormones to reach full size because the endocrine system was damaged by radiation. There is apparently a time limit on that, you have to reach a certain physical age before a certain chronological age or you get stuck. I'm not sure they even understand why that is so, just that it is so. Also, the treatment while working, isn't going so well - kid may be a little short - and they don't know why. All the levels are right with treatment.
I'm going with 50/50 that there is even a genetic cause to this unique case. And if so, I'd go with under 10 percent chance it's a mutation in coding DNA. But please do continue, if it is DNA the discovery should be well worth the effort.
GOOD ideas are NOT a dime a dozen. If they were, every programmer would have a successful business simply by implementing their own good ideas. I've been programming for decades and have a couple ideas I think are really good. One has been described as a "billion dollar idea" by a friend of mine. We don't have the type of experience necessary to bring it to life on our own (without huge learning). We do embedded software and the idea is web/network/mobile. Another neat idea I've got could be put together by a competent Android programmer in a week or two - again, I haven't tried 'droid and when I have looked at Java it made me cringe. This one seems less likely to be a blockbuster, but the risk/reward is still good 'cause it should be relatively easy.
So what do you propose I do? My best bet is probably to bite the bullet and learn Android programming on the simple app. That would then provide some experience for the mobile part of the other. Or should I hire an Android programmer for the simple app? And would they be an asshole because all I'd provide is the "idea" while they write the code for a price?
Yeah, I'm starting to think they're a pump-n-dump stock. They keep talking about the price of rare earths and how they have this mine, and how they just need to clear some government hurdle... It's always right around the corner. Dude, it's their own fucking mine, just ramp production back up and show me the money. They need to stop talking about it and start producing. Been a few years now.
I was asked to interview a guy that my boss wanted to hire from another part of the company. I gave him FizzBuzz in the interview. He spent a long time and did not complete it - he did have stuff running and partly working. He's a young guy and was really distraught over the whole thing. I recommended we not hire him "guy can't code" but they did anyway. Turns out he's actually not bad in normal circumstances, and rather good at some other things (which is why they wanted him in the first place). So NO, you should not base a decision on a single programming task. Now had he failed FizzBuzz AND shown no other promising characteristics they would not have hired him.
BTW he sits next to me now and his nick is Fizz...
Yep, I've heard the stories about standard panel size. But I'd rather have a 30" 720 than a 32" 768. Shit, just give me a mode that puts black around the 720 image on the 768 TV. Nope. The rescaling really does hurt image quality. Notice that ALL 720s are like this now and NONE of the 1080s have an unusual panel resolution.
1080 on a 720 TV requires a scaling of 1.5 to 1 which is relatively easy. Going from 720 to 768 requires a stretch of 16/15 which is NOT easy. Also going from 720 (most broadcast TV in the US) to 1080 is a multiplier of 1.5. So OTA and bluray will look great on a 1080 TV but will require an unusual scaling to reach 768. I used to have an actual 720 DLP TV and it looked quite fantastic compared to the 768 LCD that replaced it, and that's not due to the tech difference. This is why many people see a difference between 1080 and 720 TVs. Try rescaling a nice clear image by 16/15 and see what happens.
The real problem is that the resolution is exactly double that of 1920x1080. This means scaling up or down will work very well and people won't be able to tell the difference between this and 1080p. You know, because all the 720 TVs are actually 1366x768 which means images have to be smeared to shit, making 1080 TV look so much better (even with OTA 720 shows). And yes, I'm claiming industry-wide effort to make 1080 appear visibly better than 720. Or perhaps the 1080 sets will start to be 1152 to make 4K look better than regular HD even with 1080 content.
Yeah, but when you're already booked and just spent 2 days driving 1200 miles to get there, already checked in and spent one night at a resort, then show up at a theme park where they ask you to stick a finger in a scanner.... That's not really the time to opt-out. Thanks Disney World.
And convincing them that he can do the job without being a problem. Often (not always) PhDs are considered (or consider themselves) really good at stuff because of their credentials. Even stuff outside their major. In the general case that is not so, but it can lead to arrogance, or preferential treatment, both of which are bad for the work environment. I had a manager tell me he'd only ever hire a PhD if he wanted someone with that specific area of knowledge due to this phenomenon.
;-) Come to think of it, the problem guys were working outside their area of expertise.
I've worked with a number of PhDs mostly working in areas of their education and it's been mostly great with a few that had ego issues. OTOH many of them were working in their area of expertise and were quite good
Apparently - if you believe the LERN (cold) fusion folks, the easy path to gold would be so type of platinum-hydrogen fusion. No exactly cheap precursors ;-)