I'd rather see "more practically adept" going into trades than "less academically adept". But while there's a social stigma attached, it is going to be the people who aren't capable of doing a white-collar job (plus the few who want to do a trade anyway). So the average contractor stays expensive, overworked, and incompetent.
If folks are neither practically adept nor academically adept? No clue. Retail? Unskilled labor until they lose a limb?
Blame the idiotic coverage rather than the folks building the wall. They're well aware it was just a cool (sorry) art piece. And shared their experiences for anyone who wants to build or build on the design.
That work was just published at the ACM Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces conference, so there is a rather more coherent explanation (and another video) at: http://www.dfki.de/its2010/papers/sp199.html
(Not affiliated with either group, but ITS was a lot of fun)
Google must have "forced" Apple to drop Skyhook as well. Or maybe there were reasons to develop a competitor, rather than continue to deal with Skyhook. Like Apple did.
Seriously, when did "Oh no, we're being forced to compete! Let's sue everyone!" become an acceptable business plan?
At least it is easier to authenticate a physical item, also it is easier to make it difficult to copy.
Digital information is *very* easy to authenticate and *very* hard to forge -- think SSL -- in comparison something like physical bills.
Digital information being easy to copy means that you *detect* the copy, rather than trying to *prevent* it. DRM tries to prevent the copy. All Bitcoin determines is whether you got the oldest copy (and the how is in their tech report).
Approaches vary but that is far from an obscure threat. Some, like I believe Bitcoin does, do a global check of the current owner of the coin (and yes, handle the obvious race conditions). Others make it relatively expensive to establish a new identity, provide probabilistic discovery of double spending...
Well, close. Money needs to be hard to replicate _without getting caught_.
Part of the design of digital currencies is making it so that double-spending is likely to be detectable. Bitcoin seems to broadcast all transactions to the network, but I admit I just glanced at their technical paper.
The other *big* reason to start your inquiry with published papers: Unless your initial e-mail shows that you have read and understood some of the professor's papers, your request is likely going to be ignored. The professors I know get requests every day from random students seeking a graduate supervisor. Many of them are form e-mails. Many more simply show no idea what the professor does. They all get deleted.
Express interest in a part of their work which is interesting to you, and come up with a few questions about their future work.
Yes and no. I don't think $70K with a few years experience is unheard of, but it's also outside the normal distribution.
Many companies are in places with absolutely mind-numbing costs of living. Many also seem to realize that non-professional development experience is still valuable. The combination of the two can make the salaries for some "new" programmers pretty impressive.
Heck, my take is that even Microsoft's "big ass table" is too small and too low-resolution for complex highly-social board games. And they're the ones that could benefit most from adding a computer into the mix.
Double the size and resolution, then we can talk about board games.
The iPad: If you're too nerdy to attend the chess club in person.
But, seriously, implementing board games well on a computer demands a lot more than a small touch-sensitive display. Simple non-social games are easier, but they work just fine on a traditional PC.
My point is that since Microsoft is a major beneficiary of other government policies, they should be the last ones exempted from the few laws that interfere with the business.
When governments are not a huge customer of Microsoft, there might be some ground to complain about them being subject to anti-trust laws.
For the moment, "Microsoft tax" is far too literal. And your comment far too close to the usual silliness of reducing regulations on government-supported monopolies...
I'd love active-active for some of the systems I'm working on. However http://www.drbd.org/home/mirroring/ seems to imply that it is currently complex, limited, and flaky. Did you find a better way, or are they just being cynical?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather see "more practically adept" going into trades than "less academically adept". But while there's a social stigma attached, it is going to be the people who aren't capable of doing a white-collar job (plus the few who want to do a trade anyway). So the average contractor stays expensive, overworked, and incompetent.
If folks are neither practically adept nor academically adept? No clue. Retail? Unskilled labor until they lose a limb?
No text. Really.
Fun :)
And shared experience, so someone else will have a little less tinkering to do when they look at this and go "Hey, I wonder if I could..."
For anyone who doesn't feel like clicking through the slow copy-and-paste blog to get to the actual NewScientist article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827875.800-worlds-first-ice-touchscreen-virtually-burns.html
Blame the idiotic coverage rather than the folks building the wall. They're well aware it was just a cool (sorry) art piece. And shared their experiences for anyone who wants to build or build on the design.
That work was just published at the ACM Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces conference, so there is a rather more coherent explanation (and another video) at:
http://www.dfki.de/its2010/papers/sp199.html
(Not affiliated with either group, but ITS was a lot of fun)
Google must have "forced" Apple to drop Skyhook as well. Or maybe there were reasons to develop a competitor, rather than continue to deal with Skyhook. Like Apple did.
Seriously, when did "Oh no, we're being forced to compete! Let's sue everyone!" become an acceptable business plan?
At least it is easier to authenticate a physical item, also it is easier to make it difficult to copy.
Digital information is *very* easy to authenticate and *very* hard to forge -- think SSL -- in comparison something like physical bills.
Digital information being easy to copy means that you *detect* the copy, rather than trying to *prevent* it. DRM tries to prevent the copy. All Bitcoin determines is whether you got the oldest copy (and the how is in their tech report).
Approaches vary but that is far from an obscure threat. Some, like I believe Bitcoin does, do a global check of the current owner of the coin (and yes, handle the obvious race conditions). Others make it relatively expensive to establish a new identity, provide probabilistic discovery of double spending...
Money needs to be hard to replicate.
Well, close. Money needs to be hard to replicate _without getting caught_.
Part of the design of digital currencies is making it so that double-spending is likely to be detectable. Bitcoin seems to broadcast all transactions to the network, but I admit I just glanced at their technical paper.
The other *big* reason to start your inquiry with published papers: Unless your initial e-mail shows that you have read and understood some of the professor's papers, your request is likely going to be ignored. The professors I know get requests every day from random students seeking a graduate supervisor. Many of them are form e-mails. Many more simply show no idea what the professor does. They all get deleted.
Express interest in a part of their work which is interesting to you, and come up with a few questions about their future work.
I would LOVE for facebook to have a privacy option "Disable the ability to tag me in any photo"
Like the privacy setting entitled "Photos and videos I'm tagged in", which can be customized to Only Me or blocked from specific people?
I can't swear that it works properly. So test with someone other than your mistress first :)
Now make it 6x the size, triple the display resolution, add space for your knees, and a whole whack of custom software...
Except that would be a few hundred thousand dollars. Canned technology is not the solution for all problems.
Yes and no. I don't think $70K with a few years experience is unheard of, but it's also outside the normal distribution.
Many companies are in places with absolutely mind-numbing costs of living. Many also seem to realize that non-professional development experience is still valuable. The combination of the two can make the salaries for some "new" programmers pretty impressive.
it wouldn't build as there were items Google never released that it was dependent upon.
Are you sure that statement is true? It seems inconsistent with other information posted here, and in the LWN discussion.
Heck, my take is that even Microsoft's "big ass table" is too small and too low-resolution for complex highly-social board games. And they're the ones that could benefit most from adding a computer into the mix.
Double the size and resolution, then we can talk about board games.
But, seriously, implementing board games well on a computer demands a lot more than a small touch-sensitive display. Simple non-social games are easier, but they work just fine on a traditional PC.
The payment creates an[] obligation.
An obligation to include vicious anti-liability clauses and avoid any admission of wrong-doing?
Sorry, don't get the parallel.
My point is that since Microsoft is a major beneficiary of other government policies, they should be the last ones exempted from the few laws that interfere with the business.
When governments are not a huge customer of Microsoft, there might be some ground to complain about them being subject to anti-trust laws.
For the moment, "Microsoft tax" is far too literal. And your comment far too close to the usual silliness of reducing regulations on government-supported monopolies...
Yet there are still dipsticks who can't preserve a copyright line, license, and warranty disclaimer.
Because the folks using BSD- and MIT-style licenses don't care if the license terms are ignored?
No, wait, they do care. Funny that.
"I mean, traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time"
Little did they know that electricity, and the ensuing advances in technology, would remove the need for scam artists to travel :)
I'd love active-active for some of the systems I'm working on. However http://www.drbd.org/home/mirroring/ seems to imply that it is currently complex, limited, and flaky. Did you find a better way, or are they just being cynical?
Good point. I abbreviated the statement too much, and lost some of the specificity.