The Prius (which does not plug into the grid) is notorious for having a much higher EPA MPG rating than it achieves in real life. That's why I say it's silly.
So far, I've seen two main methods of computing the fuel economy of a hybrid. The silliest one is the EPA method, which simply measures emissions and plugs them into a government mandated formula. This works for most traditional cars, but for hybrids it tends to overstate the fuel economy. The other accounts for the amount of gasoline and electricity from the grid used to power the vehicle. If you never plug your vehicle into an outlet, this is equivalent to dividing travel distance by number of gallons of gasoline. If you do plug your car in at night, it gets harder to calculate, since we don't typically burn gasoline to create electricity on the grid.
About the best you can do is compare emissions equivalence. Electric motors are zero-emissions at the point of use, but the coal plant on the edge of town will belch a little more if you're drawing from the grid. To find a useful ratio, you have to make assumptions about the particular mix of energy sources providing electricity to your home: Coal, natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc. For specific regions that's doable, but for a nationwide scale you have to work with averages.
Given how cheap electricity is compared to many things, I suppose most people will just look at what they're paying at the pump, though.
companies don't want to hire people who understand the compilers, they want people who know C++, C, Java, SQL, PHP...
So that explains why most the people I interviewed the various times we've tried to hire people had no clue about assembly language or what a compiler actually did to make the code run. Hint: I work at a company, so your statement doesn't hold for all companies. Oh, and we have to deal with the crap code that these folks end up writing when these other companies come to us as customers and 3rd parties. *bangs head on desk*
Just because many companies don't care if you demonstrate knowledge of the low level details, it doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Some companies actually look for this. Other companies will benefit from this, even if they didn't know to ask.
Ours didn't have 1's. We had to borrow l's. Fortunately for us, our typeface was a precursor to Courier. Electronic format? Pshaw. We didn't get to use any electrons until y'all started recycling them in your Slashdot sigs.
Next, here's a simple explanation of what "anamorphic" is all about. It originally comes from the cinema. An anamorphic lens stretches or shrinks the image along one axis. In the movies, they use it to shrink the image horizontally when they film it, and stretch it back when they project it. This is what allows theaters to fit a widescreen image on square cells on the film. Anamorphic DVDs work similarly.
See, the aspect ratio (ratio of width to height) of the Star Wars theatrical release is somewhat larger than TV's traditional aspect ratio of 4:3. Annoyingly, the video format that DVDs use is hard-coded to a range of fixed resolutions, all of which have 4 times as many pixels across as they have vertically. (Ok, I'm oversimplifying slightly, but not critically.) To fit content wider than 4:3 onto a 4:3 format, you have 3 choices:
Shrink the image uniformally so that it fits width-wise. This gives unused areas at the top and bottom of the image. The resulting output is referred to as "letterboxed."
Crop away the sides, adjusting camera shots to bring in the most interesting aspects of the scene. This is referred to as "pan-and-scan."
Shrink the image horizontally so that it fits width-wise but fills the screen top-to-bottom. This uses all the available pixels but gives you the complete image. This is referred to as "anamorphic."
To display an anamorphic DVD on a regular-screen TV, the DVD player will still need to shrink the image top-to-bottom, otherwise everything will look tall and thin. On such a TV, an anamorphic DVD will not look much different than a letterboxed DVD. On a wide-screen TV, though, the DVD player can stretch the image side-to-side to fill the entire width of the display. This provides a direct benefit over simply enlarging a letterboxed DVD image: You gain vertical resolution.
The current Freescale, unhindered by Motorola, may indeed be much more competitive than when it was MSPS. I was objecting more to the comment that Motorola was such a shining example of great management.
Motorola/Freescale held up as an example of good management? Maybe other divisions of Motorola, but even then I'm not so sure. As I recall, what became Freescale almost never made a profit when it was Motorola Semiconductor, and just ended up being a training ground for other companies. MSPS just liked to bleed money. That was true even before the tech bubble burst.
I won't comment on Freescale as my employer competes directly with them. I don't mind commenting on old news though.
I read that "Swiss-based" part and said to myself "WTF?" I thought they were a Utah-based company. The original SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) was obviously not Swiss. I don't see Switzerland mentioned anywhere on the Wikipedia page either. I do se Santa Cruz, CA and Linden, UT mentioned though.
Adding to what Qzukk said, in this case I imagine the letter bounding boxes probably derive from the perceived positions of the neighboring characters, and there's probably some normalization step involved when extracting the perceived character from the image. Furthermore, depending on the font, you could have characters that appear to bump into each other in some pairings. For example, consider "it" vs. "t" at the start of a word. The bar of the 't' nearly touches the body of the preceding 'i' (at least in the font I'm using at the moment). Is it "ii" with a hunk of noise or "it"?
A higher resolution source would probably fare much better.
It's all about the wavelengths. If you want to block ALL EM, then yeah, you need a solid metal enclosure. But, just like you can see into your microwave oven through a wire mesh, you could also put windows on your faraday cage as long as they were covered by an appropriate wire mesh.
IIRC, the 2.5GHz of a microwave oven beam and the 2.4GHz of WiFi are both around 12 cm wavelength. The holes in the mesh on your microwave are so small that the microwaves can't make it through it without severe attenuation.
I think he's gunning it to override the TCS. I've heard stories about the Grand Prix GTP's TCS that match his: That with it on, the car just doesn't move period. That's worthless. What it should be doing is starting in a higher gear or something so the car doesn't deliver so much torque to the wheels. Mine was a '97 w/out TCS. I now drive an '02, but I haven't had an occasion to take it in snow. I live in Texas.
The other situation where you need to gun it is if you're in a rut. The ol' rock the car out method. Zoom forward, zoom reverse, zoom forward, zoom reverse. (With some cat litter thrown in for traction.) There's a reason I left MI for TX. You don't shovel heat.
And here I thought EDE mode was there so that you could do single-DES and triple-DES with the same hardware--just set all three keys equal and the first E and D cancel in the EDE structure.
Let's assume for a moment that https is sufficient to guard against 3rd party attacks on the connection itself (such as eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle). I guess my question is: Are you trying to hide your documents from Google completely, or just in long term storage?
If you're trying to hide your document from Google completely, then it needs to be encrypted before it leaves your machine in a manner such that only you can decrypt it. This requires symmetric encryption. Furthermore, it requires the encryption code and key to remain on the client—Google only stores the encrypted ciphertext. If you don't mind your draft to live unencrypted on Google's servers while you're working on it, but want the long term storage to be encrypted, that is somewhat more flexible. (Though, I wonder how much security it buys you?)
If you want to use asymmetric (public key) encryption to encrypt long term storage, and if you want to offload all the encryption and decryption to Google, then you'll have to give both keys to Google at some point. The public key to encrypt and the private key to decrypt (or vice versa—which one you label public or private out of a key pair matters only to you). The only advantage of having such an asymmetric setup is that the server could store the public key and encrypt drafts on the fly, and would only need to request the private key when it needed to decrypt a previous document. But, unless you had a different key pair for each document, I suggest that the security offered is non-existant. Given the relative cost of generating key pairs, I don't see the value here.
Even if you offload all the crypto to Google's servers, I'd think a per-document symmetric key, held by the client, would be the best way to go. The client would send the key to Google to decrypt the document, and could send a new key at the end of the session to reencrypt it. This does raise the question of where the key-ring gets stored, but then nobody said leaving your data on someone elses server while not letting them see it was going to be easy.:-) And, with the crypto on the Google side, how do you really know it's happening?
I don't think you understand how public-key encryption works. You really want a symmetric cipher, since it's both you reading and writing the document.
You know, I've never liked the word "pod" anyway. There's just something about it I don't like. I don't mind if it disappears from the English lexicon. I didn't expect Apple would be the one to do it, but I won't complain.
I lose all my WPM when I hit Caps accidentally.:-) I don't think I've used Caps on purpose (except as a joke) since the 80s, when it was a necessity. (Apple ][ DOS 3.3: "BE SURE CAPS LOCK IS DOWN." TI-99/4A also wanted ALL CAPS.) Maybe it's because I use VI that I find myself completely disinterested in using Caps, and supremely frustrated when I bump it accidentally. I'd rather use that space for something else, or nuke it completely.
As for retraining costs, etc. I'm not sure it's that big a deal. If they start offering keyboards that remove Caps and do something interesting and useful with the space, I might just buy one. If manufacturers make it easy to select among a couple different layouts for the "extra keys," say, with swappable keycaps, that might work too. Although, historically, it seems most people just use what they're given and don't give two shakes about it. (That would NOT include a good portion of us Slashdotters.) So, it's not clear that market forces can do it, though they might.
Slashdot Mirror
The Prius (which does not plug into the grid) is notorious for having a much higher EPA MPG rating than it achieves in real life. That's why I say it's silly.
So far, I've seen two main methods of computing the fuel economy of a hybrid. The silliest one is the EPA method, which simply measures emissions and plugs them into a government mandated formula. This works for most traditional cars, but for hybrids it tends to overstate the fuel economy. The other accounts for the amount of gasoline and electricity from the grid used to power the vehicle. If you never plug your vehicle into an outlet, this is equivalent to dividing travel distance by number of gallons of gasoline. If you do plug your car in at night, it gets harder to calculate, since we don't typically burn gasoline to create electricity on the grid.
About the best you can do is compare emissions equivalence. Electric motors are zero-emissions at the point of use, but the coal plant on the edge of town will belch a little more if you're drawing from the grid. To find a useful ratio, you have to make assumptions about the particular mix of energy sources providing electricity to your home: Coal, natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc. For specific regions that's doable, but for a nationwide scale you have to work with averages.
Given how cheap electricity is compared to many things, I suppose most people will just look at what they're paying at the pump, though.
--JoeBut to make it successful, he'll need developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, ....
That's one heck of a daily driver! I wonder what their weekend cars look like?
I guess these are inverse blipverts, eh?
I don't see ads, but that's because I have an SBC Yahoo! DSL account. Do you?
So that explains why most the people I interviewed the various times we've tried to hire people had no clue about assembly language or what a compiler actually did to make the code run. Hint: I work at a company, so your statement doesn't hold for all companies. Oh, and we have to deal with the crap code that these folks end up writing when these other companies come to us as customers and 3rd parties. *bangs head on desk*
Just because many companies don't care if you demonstrate knowledge of the low level details, it doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Some companies actually look for this. Other companies will benefit from this, even if they didn't know to ask.
--JoeOurs didn't have 1's. We had to borrow l's. Fortunately for us, our typeface was a precursor to Courier. Electronic format? Pshaw. We didn't get to use any electrons until y'all started recycling them in your Slashdot sigs.
A certain Professor Faulken, in loving memory of his son, Joshua.
Err, typo above. "4 times as many pixels across" should read "4/3rds as many pixels across." Carry on.
First: Here's a shot-by-shot comparison of the newly released footage to recent home releases.
Next, here's a simple explanation of what "anamorphic" is all about. It originally comes from the cinema. An anamorphic lens stretches or shrinks the image along one axis. In the movies, they use it to shrink the image horizontally when they film it, and stretch it back when they project it. This is what allows theaters to fit a widescreen image on square cells on the film. Anamorphic DVDs work similarly.
See, the aspect ratio (ratio of width to height) of the Star Wars theatrical release is somewhat larger than TV's traditional aspect ratio of 4:3. Annoyingly, the video format that DVDs use is hard-coded to a range of fixed resolutions, all of which have 4 times as many pixels across as they have vertically. (Ok, I'm oversimplifying slightly, but not critically.) To fit content wider than 4:3 onto a 4:3 format, you have 3 choices:
To display an anamorphic DVD on a regular-screen TV, the DVD player will still need to shrink the image top-to-bottom, otherwise everything will look tall and thin. On such a TV, an anamorphic DVD will not look much different than a letterboxed DVD. On a wide-screen TV, though, the DVD player can stretch the image side-to-side to fill the entire width of the display. This provides a direct benefit over simply enlarging a letterboxed DVD image: You gain vertical resolution.
--JoeThe current Freescale, unhindered by Motorola, may indeed be much more competitive than when it was MSPS. I was objecting more to the comment that Motorola was such a shining example of great management.
--JoeClarification: I won't comment on Freescale post spin-off. Obviously I commented on MSPS, which is what became Freescale.
--JoeMotorola/Freescale held up as an example of good management? Maybe other divisions of Motorola, but even then I'm not so sure. As I recall, what became Freescale almost never made a profit when it was Motorola Semiconductor, and just ended up being a training ground for other companies. MSPS just liked to bleed money. That was true even before the tech bubble burst.
I won't comment on Freescale as my employer competes directly with them. I don't mind commenting on old news though.
--JoeI read that "Swiss-based" part and said to myself "WTF?" I thought they were a Utah-based company. The original SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) was obviously not Swiss. I don't see Switzerland mentioned anywhere on the Wikipedia page either. I do se Santa Cruz, CA and Linden, UT mentioned though.
If you're referring to eye-sores like this... I agree! I'm no artist but that looks ridiculous. "Rediculous" even! ;-)
--JoeAdding to what Qzukk said, in this case I imagine the letter bounding boxes probably derive from the perceived positions of the neighboring characters, and there's probably some normalization step involved when extracting the perceived character from the image. Furthermore, depending on the font, you could have characters that appear to bump into each other in some pairings. For example, consider "it" vs. "t" at the start of a word. The bar of the 't' nearly touches the body of the preceding 'i' (at least in the font I'm using at the moment). Is it "ii" with a hunk of noise or "it"?
A higher resolution source would probably fare much better.
--JoeMaybe it's harder to renege on a release if it's not hosted on their network?
It's all about the wavelengths. If you want to block ALL EM, then yeah, you need a solid metal enclosure. But, just like you can see into your microwave oven through a wire mesh, you could also put windows on your faraday cage as long as they were covered by an appropriate wire mesh.
IIRC, the 2.5GHz of a microwave oven beam and the 2.4GHz of WiFi are both around 12 cm wavelength. The holes in the mesh on your microwave are so small that the microwaves can't make it through it without severe attenuation.
--JoeI think he's gunning it to override the TCS. I've heard stories about the Grand Prix GTP's TCS that match his: That with it on, the car just doesn't move period. That's worthless. What it should be doing is starting in a higher gear or something so the car doesn't deliver so much torque to the wheels. Mine was a '97 w/out TCS. I now drive an '02, but I haven't had an occasion to take it in snow. I live in Texas.
The other situation where you need to gun it is if you're in a rut. The ol' rock the car out method. Zoom forward, zoom reverse, zoom forward, zoom reverse. (With some cat litter thrown in for traction.) There's a reason I left MI for TX. You don't shovel heat.
--JoeAnd here I thought EDE mode was there so that you could do single-DES and triple-DES with the same hardware--just set all three keys equal and the first E and D cancel in the EDE structure.
--JoeLet's assume for a moment that https is sufficient to guard against 3rd party attacks on the connection itself (such as eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle). I guess my question is: Are you trying to hide your documents from Google completely, or just in long term storage?
If you're trying to hide your document from Google completely, then it needs to be encrypted before it leaves your machine in a manner such that only you can decrypt it. This requires symmetric encryption. Furthermore, it requires the encryption code and key to remain on the client—Google only stores the encrypted ciphertext. If you don't mind your draft to live unencrypted on Google's servers while you're working on it, but want the long term storage to be encrypted, that is somewhat more flexible. (Though, I wonder how much security it buys you?)
If you want to use asymmetric (public key) encryption to encrypt long term storage, and if you want to offload all the encryption and decryption to Google, then you'll have to give both keys to Google at some point. The public key to encrypt and the private key to decrypt (or vice versa—which one you label public or private out of a key pair matters only to you). The only advantage of having such an asymmetric setup is that the server could store the public key and encrypt drafts on the fly, and would only need to request the private key when it needed to decrypt a previous document. But, unless you had a different key pair for each document, I suggest that the security offered is non-existant. Given the relative cost of generating key pairs, I don't see the value here.
Even if you offload all the crypto to Google's servers, I'd think a per-document symmetric key, held by the client, would be the best way to go. The client would send the key to Google to decrypt the document, and could send a new key at the end of the session to reencrypt it. This does raise the question of where the key-ring gets stored, but then nobody said leaving your data on someone elses server while not letting them see it was going to be easy. :-) And, with the crypto on the Google side, how do you really know it's happening?
--JoeI don't think you understand how public-key encryption works. You really want a symmetric cipher, since it's both you reading and writing the document.
You know, I've never liked the word "pod" anyway. There's just something about it I don't like. I don't mind if it disappears from the English lexicon. I didn't expect Apple would be the one to do it, but I won't complain.
I lose all my WPM when I hit Caps accidentally. :-) I don't think I've used Caps on purpose (except as a joke) since the 80s, when it was a necessity. (Apple ][ DOS 3.3: "BE SURE CAPS LOCK IS DOWN." TI-99/4A also wanted ALL CAPS.) Maybe it's because I use VI that I find myself completely disinterested in using Caps, and supremely frustrated when I bump it accidentally. I'd rather use that space for something else, or nuke it completely.
As for retraining costs, etc. I'm not sure it's that big a deal. If they start offering keyboards that remove Caps and do something interesting and useful with the space, I might just buy one. If manufacturers make it easy to select among a couple different layouts for the "extra keys," say, with swappable keycaps, that might work too. Although, historically, it seems most people just use what they're given and don't give two shakes about it. (That would NOT include a good portion of us Slashdotters.) So, it's not clear that market forces can do it, though they might.
--Joe