I remember someone in my class getting a Walkman (back when they were still expensive and exciting). After six months, he admitted that he'd gradually been having to turn up the volume to be able to hear the music clearly. I've been hesitant around headphones since then and as a result I can still hear the bats when they fly along with me when I cycle home.
This is not something that network neutrality prevents. QoS is completely allowed. If something on the customer's endpoint (or the remote) marks its packets as more sensitive to bandwidth, latency, or jitter then you are completely free to put them into different queues that priorities one or two of those attributes at the expense of the others. The only catch is that you must do the same for all traffic marked in such a way, irrespective of the remote endpoint. If you offer a VoIP service and mark its traffic as being low bandwidth, but being very sensitive to latency and jitter then you can't special-case this and make sure that the experience for your customers is better than a third-party SIP provider or Skype. Similarly, you can't launch your own video streaming service and give it a bigger share of the bandwidth and you can't take money from Hulu or Netflix to prioritise their traffic over their competitors.
It went downhill once they started sending out CDs. Back in the day, AOL and Compuserve would send out their client software on floppy disks (one initially, two later). It wasn't until very late that they started popping out the write-protect slider. I'd call them up every few weeks as a child (freephone number) and ask for a trial pack. Most of it went into the bin, but I'd reformat the disks and they'd be good to use.
Depends. China is, apparently, a pretty nice place to live if you're relatively wealthy and are on the good side of the Party establishment. Trumps America will probably be quite similar. Going from one such country where you're on the wrong side of the people in power to one where you're on their right side is probably an improvement.
The problem with that idea is that internships are a two-way interview. You're judging the candidate, but they're also judging you as a place to work. If you give them a crappy experience and they still come and work for you then that tells you that they couldn't get a job anywhere else. Probably not the candidates that you actually want to hire.
Why would you bother with interns at all if this is how you treat them? Internships are a (comparatively) cheap way of hiring. You get three months to judge how competent someone is, how well they work with the team, how quickly they pick up your workflow, and so on. At the end, you can make a far more informed decision about whether to offer them a job than in a one-day interview. If you're not taking advantage of this, then you're just wasting a load of money and you'd be better off dropping the whole thing.
The estimate that I've heard from a number of companies is that it costs around $20-30K to hire someone competent. Internships are consistently listed as their highest return-on-investment recruitment method.
I think the US system is different, but in the UK you don't pay tax on the first part of your income and a student stipend is non-taxable. This means that you can live very comfortably as a PhD student: the stipend covers your cost of living and then you can earn roughly as much as someone working a full-time minimum-wage job on top of that before you start paying taxes. When I did mine, I was coming close to the tax-free allowance from consulting work, so at the end of it I'd saved enough for a deposit on a house (not a massive achievement: I was living somewhere with very low housing costs).
This also leads to some unfortunate unintended consequences: the main funding body has made it very hard to fund PhD studentships from grants, so the work around is to hire PhD students as research assistants and enrol them as self-funded PhD students. This means that the university charges overhead and the student pays tax, so it ends up costing 2-3 times as much as a funded studentship for about the same level of take-home pay for the student. Worse, they're then above the tax-free income threshold, so they pay tax on top of any other earnings, so PhD students funded on a grant get a much worse deal than ones funded from a scholarship or other award.
The US has been fed a dichotomy of two opinions for several decades: One side believes that the government should have the power to oppress the people.
The other side believes that this is inefficient and that oppression is better handled by multinational corporations. The two main parties flip between these two ideologies depending on who controls the government and who looks more attractive to big corporate donors.
It describes the very low level of a program and a computer.
No it doesn't. It describes the very low level of a program running on a computer from 30-50 years ago. The lessons that it teaches about algorithmic complexity are still valid, but the low-level stuff is not. Once you get to limits of the implementation, rather than of the algorithm, artefacts of caches in pipelines are far more important to performance. Not only will you not find, for example, Hopscotch Hash Tables in TAOCP, you also won't find an explanation of the underlying reasons for their performance.
Exactly. Is there extra funding for ISPs to add extra security for politician's data? If not, then it might not be easy to get with a search warrant, but you can bet that some of it will be leaked. Do MPs have some special sign-on for all Internet access? If not, then you can bet that some hotspot or mobile provider won't know that they're MPs and so will hand over the data when someone goes fishing for data on a particular IP address. Do MPs have their own Internet accounts that they don't share with their family? If not, then you can bet that someone will request the data on their husbands or wives and get the results indirectly.
It's not so much grandma, it's the minimum-wage store clerk who has to be able to operate the machine and has to be able to produce the part in a sufficiently small amount of his time that it's cheaper to bring in the broken part and ask for a replacement than it is to replace the entire thing.
That's his point. You don't release the first generation and then, once it's been out a couple of years, say 'oh, the revolution didn't happen, let's give up'. You only get the revolution if you keep improving the products over a dozen or more revisions.
The main use I can see for such a machine is printing replacement parts for the cheap bit of plastic that breaks in a load of consumer equipment, but where the replacements are too difficult or expensive to buy. Unfortunately, doing that well will also need some kind of 3D scanner so that you can put in the broken bit and modify it (e.g. put in two parts and then drag them around until you have a single object).
Unfortunately, it's not so great at that. I have an HTC Desire (Bravo in the USA) that still works and I'd like to reuse as a SIP client. Unfortunately, it only runs CM 7.2. That would be fine if it were a patched version, but the latest nightly build was 2013 and that's so old that it doesn't contain an up-to-date certificate list or an SSL client library that supports modern versions of the TLS protocol, meaning that you can't use it for anything network connected.
Sure, the device is pretty old, but it has a 1GHz CPU, 512MB of RAM, and up to 32GB of flash on the SD card: that's ample for a lot of uses (it wasn't so long ago that I was using a desktop less powerful!) and throwing it away seems horribly wasteful. It was launched in 2010 and the last release (not nightly) from CM was 2012. That's less long-term support than Apple gives for iOS devices and Google gives for Nexus devices. Unfortunately, there's not much money to be made in supporting hardware that the manufacturers consider to be obsolete.
Time zones compensate for the problem that, in different places in the world, the sun is not at its highest point at the same time. They provide a quantised approximation of a solution so that the sun is at approximately its highest point at noon. Time zones are sufficient wide that the error from being in a different place within a time zone is significantly larger than the error from the small changes in rotation that leap seconds compensate for. If we didn't have leap seconds, this would remain true for about the next thousand years. I propose that in 1,000 years one of the following will hold:
The position of the sun will not matter too much to the majority of the human race.
Humans will be extinct.
Civilisation will have collapsed to the point where a universal time standard is irrelevant.
It's really hard to come up with a scenario in which the problem that leap seconds solve actually exists.
Given that Terrestrial Time exists for astronomers, and the only people for whom leap seconds are useful are astronomers, can we just stop putting leap seconds into UTC?
Slashdot Mirror
I remember someone in my class getting a Walkman (back when they were still expensive and exciting). After six months, he admitted that he'd gradually been having to turn up the volume to be able to hear the music clearly. I've been hesitant around headphones since then and as a result I can still hear the bats when they fly along with me when I cycle home.
This is not something that network neutrality prevents. QoS is completely allowed. If something on the customer's endpoint (or the remote) marks its packets as more sensitive to bandwidth, latency, or jitter then you are completely free to put them into different queues that priorities one or two of those attributes at the expense of the others. The only catch is that you must do the same for all traffic marked in such a way, irrespective of the remote endpoint. If you offer a VoIP service and mark its traffic as being low bandwidth, but being very sensitive to latency and jitter then you can't special-case this and make sure that the experience for your customers is better than a third-party SIP provider or Skype. Similarly, you can't launch your own video streaming service and give it a bigger share of the bandwidth and you can't take money from Hulu or Netflix to prioritise their traffic over their competitors.
It went downhill once they started sending out CDs. Back in the day, AOL and Compuserve would send out their client software on floppy disks (one initially, two later). It wasn't until very late that they started popping out the write-protect slider. I'd call them up every few weeks as a child (freephone number) and ask for a trial pack. Most of it went into the bin, but I'd reformat the disks and they'd be good to use.
Depends. China is, apparently, a pretty nice place to live if you're relatively wealthy and are on the good side of the Party establishment. Trumps America will probably be quite similar. Going from one such country where you're on the wrong side of the people in power to one where you're on their right side is probably an improvement.
The problem with that idea is that internships are a two-way interview. You're judging the candidate, but they're also judging you as a place to work. If you give them a crappy experience and they still come and work for you then that tells you that they couldn't get a job anywhere else. Probably not the candidates that you actually want to hire.
Why would you bother with interns at all if this is how you treat them? Internships are a (comparatively) cheap way of hiring. You get three months to judge how competent someone is, how well they work with the team, how quickly they pick up your workflow, and so on. At the end, you can make a far more informed decision about whether to offer them a job than in a one-day interview. If you're not taking advantage of this, then you're just wasting a load of money and you'd be better off dropping the whole thing.
The estimate that I've heard from a number of companies is that it costs around $20-30K to hire someone competent. Internships are consistently listed as their highest return-on-investment recruitment method.
I think the US system is different, but in the UK you don't pay tax on the first part of your income and a student stipend is non-taxable. This means that you can live very comfortably as a PhD student: the stipend covers your cost of living and then you can earn roughly as much as someone working a full-time minimum-wage job on top of that before you start paying taxes. When I did mine, I was coming close to the tax-free allowance from consulting work, so at the end of it I'd saved enough for a deposit on a house (not a massive achievement: I was living somewhere with very low housing costs).
This also leads to some unfortunate unintended consequences: the main funding body has made it very hard to fund PhD studentships from grants, so the work around is to hire PhD students as research assistants and enrol them as self-funded PhD students. This means that the university charges overhead and the student pays tax, so it ends up costing 2-3 times as much as a funded studentship for about the same level of take-home pay for the student. Worse, they're then above the tax-free income threshold, so they pay tax on top of any other earnings, so PhD students funded on a grant get a much worse deal than ones funded from a scholarship or other award.
Sounds like a head leak. Do you have a backtrace?
The US has been fed a dichotomy of two opinions for several decades: One side believes that the government should have the power to oppress the people. The other side believes that this is inefficient and that oppression is better handled by multinational corporations. The two main parties flip between these two ideologies depending on who controls the government and who looks more attractive to big corporate donors.
It describes the very low level of a program and a computer.
No it doesn't. It describes the very low level of a program running on a computer from 30-50 years ago. The lessons that it teaches about algorithmic complexity are still valid, but the low-level stuff is not. Once you get to limits of the implementation, rather than of the algorithm, artefacts of caches in pipelines are far more important to performance. Not only will you not find, for example, Hopscotch Hash Tables in TAOCP, you also won't find an explanation of the underlying reasons for their performance.
Exactly. Is there extra funding for ISPs to add extra security for politician's data? If not, then it might not be easy to get with a search warrant, but you can bet that some of it will be leaked. Do MPs have some special sign-on for all Internet access? If not, then you can bet that some hotspot or mobile provider won't know that they're MPs and so will hand over the data when someone goes fishing for data on a particular IP address. Do MPs have their own Internet accounts that they don't share with their family? If not, then you can bet that someone will request the data on their husbands or wives and get the results indirectly.
It's not so much grandma, it's the minimum-wage store clerk who has to be able to operate the machine and has to be able to produce the part in a sufficiently small amount of his time that it's cheaper to bring in the broken part and ask for a replacement than it is to replace the entire thing.
That's his point. You don't release the first generation and then, once it's been out a couple of years, say 'oh, the revolution didn't happen, let's give up'. You only get the revolution if you keep improving the products over a dozen or more revisions.
The main use I can see for such a machine is printing replacement parts for the cheap bit of plastic that breaks in a load of consumer equipment, but where the replacements are too difficult or expensive to buy. Unfortunately, doing that well will also need some kind of 3D scanner so that you can put in the broken bit and modify it (e.g. put in two parts and then drag them around until you have a single object).
The GP said none of the products were overpriced unreliable and feature poor.
You should reread the GP. He said that the revolutions didn't happen with the overpriced, unreliable, feature-poor, first-generation products.
That parable is usually interpreted to mean that secular and religious authorities can coexist.
Did you really just say that The Republic of China is not Chinese?
No it isn't. See, for example, Matthew 22:15-22.
Unfortunately, it's not so great at that. I have an HTC Desire (Bravo in the USA) that still works and I'd like to reuse as a SIP client. Unfortunately, it only runs CM 7.2. That would be fine if it were a patched version, but the latest nightly build was 2013 and that's so old that it doesn't contain an up-to-date certificate list or an SSL client library that supports modern versions of the TLS protocol, meaning that you can't use it for anything network connected.
Sure, the device is pretty old, but it has a 1GHz CPU, 512MB of RAM, and up to 32GB of flash on the SD card: that's ample for a lot of uses (it wasn't so long ago that I was using a desktop less powerful!) and throwing it away seems horribly wasteful. It was launched in 2010 and the last release (not nightly) from CM was 2012. That's less long-term support than Apple gives for iOS devices and Google gives for Nexus devices. Unfortunately, there's not much money to be made in supporting hardware that the manufacturers consider to be obsolete.
It's really hard to come up with a scenario in which the problem that leap seconds solve actually exists.
Given that Terrestrial Time exists for astronomers, and the only people for whom leap seconds are useful are astronomers, can we just stop putting leap seconds into UTC?
Did that read like an extract from Exodus to anyone else?
Please can you explain the connection between Trump, cows, apps, and luddites?
I didn't even get that far. I saw the list of permissions that it wanted (for the Android app) and didn't get as far as the install.