Let's at least wait for the darn thing to be published.
And knowing how things go in scientific circles it will probably go like this:
Tevatron publishes a 3ð experiment and later refines it to 5ð "controversial, nothing, fluke" LHC publishes a 3ð experiment that may be Higgs but with wrong mass, charge and color: "OMG Higgs was discovered"
My complaint is that they are still making 2D movies with depth. The framing, focus, editing, direction, and such are designed by 2D people with 2D movies in mind. Even if the cameras are 3D for all shots, it's still a 2D movie until the creators of movies optimize it for 3D, rather than just film 2D movies with depth.
Well, I guess that's the difference between Wolfenstein 3D, Quake and Herectic. I guess you could call 3D movies today "2.5D"
But it's probably harder to go beyond that in movies. Maybe in gaming you can go further.
I agree with "wait for them to get the hang of 3D"
But I still think 3D is more "gimmiky". Don't get me wrong, I loved Avatar. But there are several 'buts'
Sound and color are much more 'easy going'; most of the audience can appreciate it (of course there are deaf people, there are colorblind people - and I bet deaf people still enjoy their seat vibrating)
3D "doesn't work" for a non-negligible percentage of people (they get dizzy, or they can't 'adjust' themselves to understanding the 3D info). Kind of like those 'magic eye' books (but granted, they were more difficult)
You also lose detail and focus on the image, and image resolution. Some of it is tech, some not.
Also, they either require glasses or sitting in a sweet spot in front of the TV (that's unlikely to change).
Of course I may be wrong and we may have Youtube 3D in 2 years, or something like that
In the case of Toy Story the 3D information is already there, 2D is "the wrong way" to view it. (Of course movies have always been in 2D, so 3D is the 'odd man out')
Same thing as Avatar: it was from the ground up planned as a 3D movie.
Apart from that, yeah, 3D is a gimmick and spending money on a 3D TV is probably a good match your SACD player
are the scientists working with it particularly bright?
I don't think CERN scientists have a higher ratio of photon radiance in the visible spectrum (or even outside it) than scientists in other institutions.
That's great. I didn't know HP and others did similar interviews.
Of course the main issue is having a good candidate slip by (and, depending on the interview, I've came across once as 'dim' - but then again the interview was bad)
But in the end, I still think technical performance is around 70% of importance. I've meet very good technical people whom I would swap for a (slightly) less technically capable person, but easier to work with.
The problem is not the attitude of interviewers, they're usually ok, but the attitude of the company.
Also, their interview process try to cover a vast area, to make an analogy: you pick 10 numbers on a lotto ticket with 20 numbers, and they also pick 10 numbers. And then because you matched '8/10' numbers they think you're not good enough.
So they end up evaluating you on a couple of irrelevant items, and disregarding factors that could have played an important role.
I'm not saying you weren't capable, but you certainly were lucky.
Having said that, I'd take the google interview over most of the interviews around.
Google only hires people who lucks out on their broken hiring process (yes, it's not easy for them to come up with an alternative system). Also, internal politics and B.S. starts to take its toll.
Microsoft hires talented people, but it's then hampered by internal bureaucracy
End result, Google tries to go 'social' and fails again. MS releases their 'meh' Zune tablet that plays for sure until next year.
Yeah, they're not expensive because of licensing, 'sports games' are on average the same price as 'non-license' games.
But of course, if EA sold "NFL 2012" and "Generic Football 2012" being $5 cheaper, same engine but with no real names, NFL would probably still outsell by a large margin.
Well, I've heard about your experiment, and it's actually pretty fast, going at around 30 km/s around a large mass of hydrogen currently undergoing fusion!;)
It's true that being in a hospital makes things more complicated because of several regulations
But the security should be intrinsic to the data management system, and not dependent on 'crunchy security' (hard on the outside and soft on the inside). Rogue server or no server, if someone plugs a machine in the internal network and can read the database from there, game over.
Even if you're well-intentioned, capable, and reasonable about what you're asking for, this isn't a home server and family pictures you're providing access to.
True, it's a calendaring service. They probably should have gone with Google Calendar or something
The most disturbing thing to me about this story and question is that someone in the IT department was willing to open the port and allow the machine to stay connected without having root access, intimate knowledge of all installed versions of software and packages, and without relocating the server to an access-controlled datacenter
Well, sometimes you need that amount of care, but it's only one port (yes, I know it can cause havoc). And IT should keep an eye on it (firewall, IDS, etc). Root access may be a good idea in case of emergency.
Slashdot Mirror
My thoughts exactly! I enjoy it a lot as well.
It's just the problem at hand, and flipping bits.
You really have to rethink everything when you have 256 bytes of memory (or less) and a stripped down C compiler/libs (or not even that)
Actually what they had was:
A slow processor with a shameful amount of memory
Programming for this requires a totally different mindset than today's programmers.
Most of the 'heavy lifting' is hardware based.
Yeah, it spontaneously broke the symmetry between certainty and attention drawn. Or maybe it didn't.
Let's call it the HFCS particle, since it makes everything heavy...
Yeah, maybe we have to write it in Latex notation: \sigma
Ok, darn I mean not ð
Let's at least wait for the darn thing to be published.
And knowing how things go in scientific circles it will probably go like this:
Tevatron publishes a 3ð experiment and later refines it to 5ð "controversial, nothing, fluke"
LHC publishes a 3ð experiment that may be Higgs but with wrong mass, charge and color: "OMG Higgs was discovered"
My complaint is that they are still making 2D movies with depth. The framing, focus, editing, direction, and such are designed by 2D people with 2D movies in mind. Even if the cameras are 3D for all shots, it's still a 2D movie until the creators of movies optimize it for 3D, rather than just film 2D movies with depth.
Well, I guess that's the difference between Wolfenstein 3D, Quake and Herectic. I guess you could call 3D movies today "2.5D"
But it's probably harder to go beyond that in movies. Maybe in gaming you can go further.
I agree with "wait for them to get the hang of 3D"
But I still think 3D is more "gimmiky". Don't get me wrong, I loved Avatar. But there are several 'buts'
Sound and color are much more 'easy going'; most of the audience can appreciate it (of course there are deaf people, there are colorblind people - and I bet deaf people still enjoy their seat vibrating)
3D "doesn't work" for a non-negligible percentage of people (they get dizzy, or they can't 'adjust' themselves to understanding the 3D info). Kind of like those 'magic eye' books (but granted, they were more difficult)
You also lose detail and focus on the image, and image resolution. Some of it is tech, some not.
Also, they either require glasses or sitting in a sweet spot in front of the TV (that's unlikely to change).
Of course I may be wrong and we may have Youtube 3D in 2 years, or something like that
I agree
In the case of Toy Story the 3D information is already there, 2D is "the wrong way" to view it. (Of course movies have always been in 2D, so 3D is the 'odd man out')
Same thing as Avatar: it was from the ground up planned as a 3D movie.
Apart from that, yeah, 3D is a gimmick and spending money on a 3D TV is probably a good match your SACD player
are the scientists working with it particularly bright?
I don't think CERN scientists have a higher ratio of photon radiance in the visible spectrum (or even outside it) than scientists in other institutions.
They probably can, but they would have to develop (or carefully choose) a brand first
Something like that was done with 'Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball'
So I don't doubt EA could pull something like "The Sims goes Curling" even though they have money for the licenses.
And herein lies the problem, those that could use a brand instead of licensing probably don't have a strong brand.
Do you think people would buy 'Generic Kart Game' as opposed to 'Mario Kart'?
There's the brand, right there.
It probably wouldn't be as popular as if it didn't start within the Mario franchise.
That's great. I didn't know HP and others did similar interviews.
Of course the main issue is having a good candidate slip by (and, depending on the interview, I've came across once as 'dim' - but then again the interview was bad)
But in the end, I still think technical performance is around 70% of importance. I've meet very good technical people whom I would swap for a (slightly) less technically capable person, but easier to work with.
The problem is not the attitude of interviewers, they're usually ok, but the attitude of the company.
Also, their interview process try to cover a vast area, to make an analogy: you pick 10 numbers on a lotto ticket with 20 numbers, and they also pick 10 numbers. And then because you matched '8/10' numbers they think you're not good enough.
So they end up evaluating you on a couple of irrelevant items, and disregarding factors that could have played an important role.
I'm not saying you weren't capable, but you certainly were lucky.
Having said that, I'd take the google interview over most of the interviews around.
Google only hires people who lucks out on their broken hiring process (yes, it's not easy for them to come up with an alternative system). Also, internal politics and B.S. starts to take its toll.
Microsoft hires talented people, but it's then hampered by internal bureaucracy
End result, Google tries to go 'social' and fails again. MS releases their 'meh' Zune tablet that plays for sure until next year.
Yeah, they're not expensive because of licensing, 'sports games' are on average the same price as 'non-license' games.
But of course, if EA sold "NFL 2012" and "Generic Football 2012" being $5 cheaper, same engine but with no real names, NFL would probably still outsell by a large margin.
Well, EA is the monster it is for a reason.
People keep buying Fifa Y+1, Madden Y+1, NHL Y+1, etc, etc, etc, every year. For $60
While (semi-)independent game developers struggle.
Oops, I meant GPG
Use PGP and AES-256
Problem solved (granted, for now)
We're storing encrypted backups on S3, no problem. WE do the encryption.
I always wanted to know the past history of Jar-Jar-Binks
NOT
Well, I've heard about your experiment, and it's actually pretty fast, going at around 30 km/s around a large mass of hydrogen currently undergoing fusion! ;)
Exactly. There's no need to go to relativity for most of the cases.
But everyone that thinks otherwise is welcome to calculate sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) for their experiment's velocity and see if the values vary significantly
It's true that being in a hospital makes things more complicated because of several regulations
But the security should be intrinsic to the data management system, and not dependent on 'crunchy security' (hard on the outside and soft on the inside). Rogue server or no server, if someone plugs a machine in the internal network and can read the database from there, game over.
Even if you're well-intentioned, capable, and reasonable about what you're asking for, this isn't a home server and family pictures you're providing access to.
True, it's a calendaring service. They probably should have gone with Google Calendar or something
The most disturbing thing to me about this story and question is that someone in the IT department was willing to open the port and allow the machine to stay connected without having root access, intimate knowledge of all installed versions of software and packages, and without relocating the server to an access-controlled datacenter
Well, sometimes you need that amount of care, but it's only one port (yes, I know it can cause havoc). And IT should keep an eye on it (firewall, IDS, etc).
Root access may be a good idea in case of emergency.
Or...
Should I give IT access to a server for a service I need that they were incapable of providing?
But never mind, give IT a login... to a chroot environment