In particular, most outsourcing appears to assume that I >> E.
Specifically, the assumption is often not so much that the outsourcing company is so much more competent, but that their access to extremely cheap and reasonably competent labour (e.g. India) is so much greater than yours.
Doh, the spec isn't even finalized. If they had it in now, you'd complain that they were using unfinalized specs. But to answer your question, yes, it's coming in a free update scheduled for Q1 2008.
The spec was finalized in 1999 (hence the name "C99", specifically ISO/IEC 9945:1999.) There has been a few TRs since then, but that's always the case.
Back in college, 15 years ago now, I was hanging out on one of the networking Usenet groups when someone asked whether or not laptops supported Token Ring. The answer, from many sources, was that you could get PCMCIA cards for them (built-in networking wasn't common in that era), but that they would be much more expensive than Ethernet. We got the response that the original poster was an engineer with Boeing, he was researching passenger networking, and "we can't use Ethernet because it is not real-time enough for fly by wire." (The fly-by-wire system of the 777 is indeed based on Token Ring; since then the aviation industry has developed a spec fly-by-wire-capable Ethernet which the 787 uses.)
So there definitely was some notion already back then to tie the passenger networking into the same system as the fly-by-wire. Needless to say, the group (including yours truly, an undergraduate college student) responded with disbelief, and until today I thought they would have scrapped that idea ten times over before ever getting close to an aircraft. Apparently that optimistic view was totally wrong.
(Note: it is possible to have *one-way* airgap security, which would provide, say, navigation information to the passenger network while physically eliminating the possibility of interference in the other direction. All it takes is one-way communications hardware. Needless to say, it's pretty obvious from the vagueness that they're not doing that -- they would have stated so in no uncertain terms.)
To me, this machine would have been much more worth the money if it had come in an appropriately sized case. It's a MiniITX board, and it's still put in a full-size minitower case, just to make it look like you get more than you'd think. If it had come in a small MiniITX case instead, it would have made a great little thinclient or web browsing station.
[1] I've read they did it for efficiency because internally it multiplies the index to get the starting offset in an array of equal-sized elements. If you start at one, then indexing requires a subtraction, or else waste an element, which may have mattered in the 60's when RAM cost an arm and a leg.
The compiler is more than capable of doing this transformation. The real reason is because the vast majority of algorithms are easier to describe with the first index as zero -- this was a lesson learned from FORTRAN, which started indexing at 1.
It's hardly no surprise, since standalone Blu-ray player cost as much as a low-end PS3, which is also a gaming console and a media center. There is no reason for anyone to buy a standalone player, so there is virtually no market for the standalones.
Not *just* Swedish -- a number of countries use both the parallel (US-style) and serial (Sweden-style) arrangements of jacks, although the parallel style is more common.
To answer the specific question if a phone bought abroad will work in the U.S.:
A GSM phone capable of the 1900 MHz band will work in most parts of the USA with GSM carriers (Cingular/AT&T, T-Mobile, and Suncom.) In some areas, e.g. upstate NY, you also need coverage of the 850 MHz band. If you get a tri-band phone you may want to check what the low band is (it might be 850 or 900 MHz; 900 MHz is not usable in the USA.) For GSM phones, assuming it was not locked by the vendor you bought it from (check), you can just pop in the SIM card from the carrier and off you go. I used a Vietnamese version of the Nokia 6110 for many years this way.
CDMA phones (Verizon, Sprint) are trickier -- they don't have a SIM card that can be easily popped in and out; you have to get the carrier to program your phone (or get the info from them to program it for you.)
No, you should compare base station (WAP) to base station (tower) at relative usage distances (~10 m versus ~1 km?) and terminal (laptop) to terminal (cell phone) at relative usage distances (50 cm versus 3 cm?)
However, there is plenty of *negative* evidence of damage, in the form of high-power UHF TV transmitters.
Oxygen is the third most abundant atom in the universe, behind hydrogen and helium. Most of the hydrogen and helium was formed in the Big Bang, which means that oxygen is the element most frequently produced by nuclear fusion reactions in the interior of the stars.
Faulty logic there; in fact, helium is by far the element most frequently produced by nuclear fusion in stars. Just because a boatload of helium was produced in the Big Bang itself does not mean that more oxygen than helium is produced in stars.
No arguments that bomb techs perform an invaluable service. However, the ridiculous bits here isn't the bomb techs, necessarily, but rather the politicians who went "you embarrassed us, we're going to make you pay." If the police overreacts at something, it's the police's fault. The police will, as part of their mission of protecting public safety, occationally overreact. That's part of the cost of the police. You could say, "well, Turner could afford it", and of course they could, but what happens when it's someone's kid who pulls the prank that causes Boston police to go ballistic?
If you're making it from sugar, it's going to suck from an energy-balance point of view no matter what. The real challenge is to turn waste cellulose into motor fuel -- be it ethanol or biodiesel.
So what is nullity * infinity? nullity? infinity? nullfinity?
According to the paper, it seems to be (gasp!) undefined...! At the very least it does not appear to be definable from any of the axioms defined in the paper. So much for the completeness claim that the paper also makes.
I take that back. Correcting myself, by axiom A15 nullity * infinity = nullity.
So what is nullity * infinity?
nullity? infinity? nullfinity?
According to the paper, it seems to be (gasp!) undefined...! At the very least it does not appear to be definable from any of the axioms defined in the paper. So much for the completeness claim that the paper also makes.
This isn't really a flaw in RSA cryptography, but rather the fairly obvious situation that a branch predictor, shared between processes of different privilege levels, can be used as a covert channel and thus can be used to reveal state. The same is true with the cache, for example, and multithreading makes this problem many times worse by increasing the bandwidth of the channel. On architectures which don't have branch predictors, or don't share them, this is not an issue. ARM processors, for example, tend to rely on predication rather than branches (except when running Thumb), and thus don't suffer the same problem.
This class of problems is only going to grow as CPUs become less and less deterministic.
Because when you say 12:00 I know you mean noon, no matter where in the world you are.
Only in 12-hour time. This ambiguity is why my watch is set to 24-hour military time even though the closest to the military I plan to get is watching SG-1.
Actually, 12:00 is noon in 24-hour time too. However, midnight is not 12:00 in 24-hour time; that, of course, is written 00:00 (or 24:00 if you want to associate it with the previous day's date.) 12- and 24-hour time agrees from 01:00 (AM) until one minute after 12:59 (PM).
Remember the old aeronautical engineering maxim of "twin engine planes have twice the rate of engine trouble as single engine planes". Point being, that sort of "redundancy" is only a net gain if you can actually "fly" with one of your engines dead. If these datacenters require more than 1 megawatt, two 1 megawatt generators is actually a liability. The companion maxim to the above is "It's better to put all your eggs in one basket, so long as you've made sure you've got a REALLY STRONG basket."
The right answer, really is to get THREE 1 MW generators instead of one 2 MW genny, so that you only need two out of three to operate.
Last I talked to David Woodhouse (author of JFFS2), he told me JFFS2 didn't really handle filesystems in the gigabyte range very well, but that that was being remedied in order to support OLPC.
So if you can wait a bit, then JFFS2 is probably the right answer.
Crooked politicians and businessmen are very aware of the concept of deniability. It's the art of structuring a deal so that if it blows up in your face you can deny that it ever existed, without flat-out lying.
As Mr. Goldfarb of Baystar has declared under oath, Microsoft did encourage them to do this, and implied that they would cover the loss, if there was one, but would (of course) not sign a paper. Mr. Goldfarb, fairly reasonably, interpreted that as they didn't want a paper trail, but when the *** hit the fan, Microsoft instead renegged on the whole thing, leaving Baystar with a $37 million dollar tab.
This, if anything, should be a lesson to anyone else who is willing to let Microsoft use them as a sock puppet. It's also worth noting that Mr. Goldfarb produced his declaration voluntarily. Hell hath no fury...
According to the article, Microsoft didn't fund anything. They allegedly (no contract, no proof?) guaranteed BayStar's investment in SCO and backed out. I find it hilarious that someone took a for-profit corporation at their word with no contract (if they had one, I'd imagine they'd sue for breach of contract).
It's probably worth noting that individual traders in financial services companies often have a shocking degree of independence, to the point that the lack of oversight has to be classified as negligent on the part of the company. There are several centuries-old banks which have gone under due to the irresponsible trades by a single trader who managed to aquire star status on the inside, usually by getting away with a couple of extremely risky trades in the first place.
It's not at all impossible that someone star-strucked by Microsoft and tempted by the potential of getting a risk-free deal may have accepted some bogus handwaving that they don't want a paper trail or whatnot, or simply might have been too intimidated to push.
Slashdot Mirror
In particular, most outsourcing appears to assume that I >> E.
Specifically, the assumption is often not so much that the outsourcing company is so much more competent, but that their access to extremely cheap and reasonably competent labour (e.g. India) is so much greater than yours.
I have one of these for situations like this. It's pretty handy; it also comes in really great for harddrive upgrades:
http://www.coolmaxusa.com/productDetails.asp?item=CD-350-COMBO&details=features&subcategory=converter&category=converter
The spec was finalized in 1999 (hence the name "C99", specifically ISO/IEC 9945:1999.) There has been a few TRs since then, but that's always the case.
Do they actually have C99 support yet?
Back in college, 15 years ago now, I was hanging out on one of the networking Usenet groups when someone asked whether or not laptops supported Token Ring. The answer, from many sources, was that you could get PCMCIA cards for them (built-in networking wasn't common in that era), but that they would be much more expensive than Ethernet. We got the response that the original poster was an engineer with Boeing, he was researching passenger networking, and "we can't use Ethernet because it is not real-time enough for fly by wire." (The fly-by-wire system of the 777 is indeed based on Token Ring; since then the aviation industry has developed a spec fly-by-wire-capable Ethernet which the 787 uses.)
So there definitely was some notion already back then to tie the passenger networking into the same system as the fly-by-wire. Needless to say, the group (including yours truly, an undergraduate college student) responded with disbelief, and until today I thought they would have scrapped that idea ten times over before ever getting close to an aircraft. Apparently that optimistic view was totally wrong.
(Note: it is possible to have *one-way* airgap security, which would provide, say, navigation information to the passenger network while physically eliminating the possibility of interference in the other direction. All it takes is one-way communications hardware. Needless to say, it's pretty obvious from the vagueness that they're not doing that -- they would have stated so in no uncertain terms.)
To me, this machine would have been much more worth the money if it had come in an appropriately sized case. It's a MiniITX board, and it's still put in a full-size minitower case, just to make it look like you get more than you'd think. If it had come in a small MiniITX case instead, it would have made a great little thinclient or web browsing station.
The compiler is more than capable of doing this transformation. The real reason is because the vast majority of algorithms are easier to describe with the first index as zero -- this was a lesson learned from FORTRAN, which started indexing at 1.
It's hardly no surprise, since standalone Blu-ray player cost as much as a low-end PS3, which is also a gaming console and a media center. There is no reason for anyone to buy a standalone player, so there is virtually no market for the standalones.
Not *just* Swedish -- a number of countries use both the parallel (US-style) and serial (Sweden-style) arrangements of jacks, although the parallel style is more common.
According to Wikipedia the English term is epicaricacy.
To answer the specific question if a phone bought abroad will work in the U.S.:
A GSM phone capable of the 1900 MHz band will work in most parts of the USA with GSM carriers (Cingular/AT&T, T-Mobile, and Suncom.) In some areas, e.g. upstate NY, you also need coverage of the 850 MHz band. If you get a tri-band phone you may want to check what the low band is (it might be 850 or 900 MHz; 900 MHz is not usable in the USA.) For GSM phones, assuming it was not locked by the vendor you bought it from (check), you can just pop in the SIM card from the carrier and off you go. I used a Vietnamese version of the Nokia 6110 for many years this way.
CDMA phones (Verizon, Sprint) are trickier -- they don't have a SIM card that can be easily popped in and out; you have to get the carrier to program your phone (or get the info from them to program it for you.)
No, you should compare base station (WAP) to base station (tower) at relative usage distances (~10 m versus ~1 km?) and terminal (laptop) to terminal (cell phone) at relative usage distances (50 cm versus 3 cm?)
However, there is plenty of *negative* evidence of damage, in the form of high-power UHF TV transmitters.
Faulty logic there; in fact, helium is by far the element most frequently produced by nuclear fusion in stars. Just because a boatload of helium was produced in the Big Bang itself does not mean that more oxygen than helium is produced in stars.
No arguments that bomb techs perform an invaluable service. However, the ridiculous bits here isn't the bomb techs, necessarily, but rather the politicians who went "you embarrassed us, we're going to make you pay." If the police overreacts at something, it's the police's fault. The police will, as part of their mission of protecting public safety, occationally overreact. That's part of the cost of the police. You could say, "well, Turner could afford it", and of course they could, but what happens when it's someone's kid who pulls the prank that causes Boston police to go ballistic?
If you're making it from sugar, it's going to suck from an energy-balance point of view no matter what. The real challenge is to turn waste cellulose into motor fuel -- be it ethanol or biodiesel.
I take that back. Correcting myself, by axiom A15 nullity * infinity = nullity.
According to the paper, it seems to be (gasp!) undefined...! At the very least it does not appear to be definable from any of the axioms defined in the paper. So much for the completeness claim that the paper also makes.
This isn't really a flaw in RSA cryptography, but rather the fairly obvious situation that a branch predictor, shared between processes of different privilege levels, can be used as a covert channel and thus can be used to reveal state. The same is true with the cache, for example, and multithreading makes this problem many times worse by increasing the bandwidth of the channel. On architectures which don't have branch predictors, or don't share them, this is not an issue. ARM processors, for example, tend to rely on predication rather than branches (except when running Thumb), and thus don't suffer the same problem.
This class of problems is only going to grow as CPUs become less and less deterministic.
The right answer, really is to get THREE 1 MW generators instead of one 2 MW genny, so that you only need two out of three to operate.
Last I talked to David Woodhouse (author of JFFS2), he told me JFFS2 didn't really handle filesystems in the gigabyte range very well, but that that was being remedied in order to support OLPC.
So if you can wait a bit, then JFFS2 is probably the right answer.
Crooked politicians and businessmen are very aware of the concept of deniability. It's the art of structuring a deal so that if it blows up in your face you can deny that it ever existed, without flat-out lying.
As Mr. Goldfarb of Baystar has declared under oath, Microsoft did encourage them to do this, and implied that they would cover the loss, if there was one, but would (of course) not sign a paper. Mr. Goldfarb, fairly reasonably, interpreted that as they didn't want a paper trail, but when the *** hit the fan, Microsoft instead renegged on the whole thing, leaving Baystar with a $37 million dollar tab.
This, if anything, should be a lesson to anyone else who is willing to let Microsoft use them as a sock puppet. It's also worth noting that Mr. Goldfarb produced his declaration voluntarily. Hell hath no fury...
It's probably worth noting that individual traders in financial services companies often have a shocking degree of independence, to the point that the lack of oversight has to be classified as negligent on the part of the company. There are several centuries-old banks which have gone under due to the irresponsible trades by a single trader who managed to aquire star status on the inside, usually by getting away with a couple of extremely risky trades in the first place.
It's not at all impossible that someone star-strucked by Microsoft and tempted by the potential of getting a risk-free deal may have accepted some bogus handwaving that they don't want a paper trail or whatnot, or simply might have been too intimidated to push.