You don't say which graduation you are approaching, so I'll guess it's an undergrad. If you are going to continue with graduate work, or otherwise as a researcher, then it's worth it to gain credibility. It's not unknown for people to prefix a paper presentation with "By the way, I'm looking for a doctoral supervisor." This may be one of the best ways to arrange to do your graduate work in your preferred area, since you are talking to a self-selecting audience.
If, on the other hand, you want to make some money and have a career (i.e. not work in academia), you're probably not missing much by not going. You might still submit if your professor has funding to send you. Or, if the professor in question was going to attend this conference anyhow, then you could ask if he/she would be willing to present it in your place. A published paper might look good on your CV right out of school; at least it would give the interviewer something to talk with you about.
I was wondering the same thing. Given the vintage of most of it, there are probably a few CGI scripts that will need to be picked up if the idea is that someone could bring the sites back to life at some future date. Once a cure has been found.
Could the company just give each employee $1500 per year (or whatever) for hardware expenses, and let the people decide for themselves whether they want more memory, a bigger/second monitor, or whatever? Certainly wouldn't work everywhere, but in small companies (without bulk-purchasing deals) it might not be more expensive or less effective than cookie-cutter standard workstations for everyone.
How often do most people make a detailed review of their personal spending? Not every month. When they do review it, they probably want to see at least six or seven months (preferably two years for year-on-year comparison). This sounds fairly normal to me. Check the monthly statements to see that they all look about right, but download the digital version to your analysis database when you have a day or two available for introspection.
If you think there is a good security reason that the bank should not make older records available, then that's fair enough, but the fact that someone only gets around to making a full review every May doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his spending in August. If he knows that he's not going to look at the data until May, why should he need to set a reminder to download it piecewise every month just to get around a limitation of the bank's system?
Let me re-phrase: By the time Europe had deployed the GSM system, which included the useful little SMS feature for sneaking short message packets in the spare bandwidth, North America had already invested heavily in the completely incompatible AMPS system, which did not incorporate this feature.
Sorry for the confusion. I thought the "Short Message Service" connection to GSM made that the obvious reference. The existing legacy systems in Europe did not have the momentum to justify ignoring the advantages of GSM (insert arguments for nationalized telecommunication infrastructure here, or maybe the install bases were just comparatively small), while North America had already standardized on AMPS, and it took another decade or two before the GSM protocols (in a different frequency range) were widely available there.
I think you missed the point there. Let's assume that for most bad jobs there exist jobs that are worse. That's normally going to be true by any definition of "bad job" that you want to pick. Just because worse jobs exist does not mean that you should feel lucky for the bad job that you have. That doesn't mean that quitting on-air after 18 months is the best first step in exploring your options, but if nobody is willing to ask for better working conditions, and to back it up by leaving (or refusing overtime or striking or calling government safety inspectors or whatever) when they are not satisfied, those conditions will get worse for everyone.
Ok, so some people have decided to describe the universe from the point of view of the non-inertial reference frame in which they have grown up. I assume this is because they either (a) really like using incredibly complicated mathematics to describe even local celestial motion, or (b) don't expect to have a job in aerospace any time soon, and don't care. I'm guessing that most of them fall into category b, but I don't think that makes the claim incorrect. Just inconvenient for anyone who actually needs to do anything about it.
Geosynchronous orbits and most hiking trails are already described in this reference frame, so it's not completely without use.
But if the failure rate is lower on similar devices from other manufacturers, then it could have been designed better.
Either there are so many Toyotas out there that they are showing up a general problem with people (all the other manufacturers sell so few cars that their uncontrolled acceleration problems don't count as a trend), or a disproportionate number of bad drivers buy Toyotas (the failure rates for different populations do not offer a fair comparison), or there is a problem with the car.
It's also possible that the failure rate on other vehicles is the same, but that fact just hasn't been noticed by the media. I would have expected Toyota to point that one out by now, if it were the case.
Basically, sounds like the vanilla Skype client is not ready to adopt this technology on their iPhone apps, but Fring already has, using Skype's API. This makes Skype's devs look bad...
It would also make the API look bad if this over-extends it (i.e. using it "in a way it wasn’t designed to be used" as Skype claims), resulting in reduced reliability. Skype is trying to build a reputation for being as reliable as the fixed telephone networks which, whatever else you might say about them, are pretty damn reliable. Something that usually works, but sometimes gets turned off without notice (like Skype claims happened last Friday) is not going to compete with the predictable (if boring and audio-only) plain-old-telephone-service.
Proof that MD5 isn't secure. They were able to reverse-engineer a coherent mission statement that hashes to their encrypted secret message. Never trust a signed MD5 hash again.
I expect the ultra-low-power messages to be so rare (small packets with long, asynchronous delays between) that you won't see significant interference from that. When they are not sending, they have no signal; when they are sending, they don't send much. That's how they save power. "Classic" Bluetooth uses adaptive hopping to avoid interference with local wireless signals by dropping channels from the sequence if they show unusually high error rates. You shouldn't have a problem using it next to a WiFi device.
Yes. That's the idea. The low-power uses the same set of frequencies, just in a different way. I'm not sure whether you will be able to see the data from your pedometer on the phone while you are simultaneously having a conversation using a connected headset, but significant re-use of components is certainly designed in. There will be chips (such as those designed for phones) that support low-power as well as other modes. An often-cited scenario is to receive a call on your phone, read the caller name on your watch, then pick up the call with your headset; and your watch should still give wristwatch-like battery life.
Yes, that's what I meant. I'm completely convinced that it does not exist. But, if it does exist, then we've made a big mistake somewhere. It would be worse than proving P = NP. Writing a proof that makes life incredibly inconvenient for as many people as possible is what wins awards in mathematics, which is another difference between mathematicians and engineers.
You're thinking like an engineer. This person is a mathematician. It's not about being useful, it's about being able to find (and prove) the answer. If you can prove what the last digit of pi is, then you will become a very famous person. Even if it doesn't help you measure the internal volume of a grain silo, it will destroy enough important theory that nobody will be able to call it irrelevant.
Finding how rules interact is for mathematicians. Finding which rules we are playing by is for physicists. Playing the game is for engineers.
do you *really* think that the laws of physics will ever be less important?
Right, but which of those rules won't change. F=ma? Good approximation for large, slow things, but not actually true since we found out about the speed of light. What happens when we explain dark matter and dark energy? Physics is all subject to change, since it tries to approximate a set of rules that we aren't really sure about. Mathematics is constant because it writes its own rules.
The perfect tattoo: in a single 72-point font, the last digit of Pi.
Backup plan: your five top choices for laws of physics that we all know to be true today, but that we will know to be false before you die. Then you can cross them out as they are disproven.
In computer science or electrical engineering, it would be unusual to submit a journal paper for which you hadn't hardened the content through a conference or two. An "original paper" doesn't mean it has to be the first time you have published the individual ideas; just the first time you have collected them into a journal article.
Just give them a cruise ship with an armed escort, and be done with it already.
I like the idea. Just for comparison, we should see what a few of the G20 navies would claim as the cost to use a carrier group for a four or five days.
Of course, the image of the G20 leaders meeting in a floating fortress might send a "we're under siege" message to the public, but at least the security arrangements would be simpler.
American football is short bursts of incredibly intricate plays in which every player is doing something worth analysis, and it provides long pauses during which that analysis can be shown from every angle possible in a three-dimensional world. The game we are talking about here is on a different time scale, in which players don't have so many set plays (since it doesn't start from the more-or-less known configuration of two separate groups facing each other), so every player needs to be inventive and adapt as the play progresses. There are also very few times when a producer can be sure nothing interesting is going to happen, so replays need to be kept to a minimum, and following the continually changing strategies might be more difficult with frequent camera-angle changes.
Also, I suspect there is a single feed for the coverage (can someone confirm?) so a video producer needs to be extra confident before interrupting the feed to however many networks to show a replay that might overrun the play that makes the game. For most American football games, I think the coverage is bought by a single network, and the person selecting the camera angles and replays works for the same people as do the announcers, so they may have more freedom to try things out.
I would also be interested in seeing what the coverage in the U.S. actually looks like (including the half-time and full-time replays), and comparing it with BBC/ITV broadcasts. Maybe we are not talking about the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't say which graduation you are approaching, so I'll guess it's an undergrad. If you are going to continue with graduate work, or otherwise as a researcher, then it's worth it to gain credibility. It's not unknown for people to prefix a paper presentation with "By the way, I'm looking for a doctoral supervisor." This may be one of the best ways to arrange to do your graduate work in your preferred area, since you are talking to a self-selecting audience.
If, on the other hand, you want to make some money and have a career (i.e. not work in academia), you're probably not missing much by not going. You might still submit if your professor has funding to send you. Or, if the professor in question was going to attend this conference anyhow, then you could ask if he/she would be willing to present it in your place. A published paper might look good on your CV right out of school; at least it would give the interviewer something to talk with you about.
I recently re-played Zork I all the way through, and it was a blast.
Infocom released all three of the original text adventures on their website for, in their words, "zero Zorkmids!"
I was wondering the same thing. Given the vintage of most of it, there are probably a few CGI scripts that will need to be picked up if the idea is that someone could bring the sites back to life at some future date. Once a cure has been found.
But in 2004, they couldn't have had this bit:
Since then, 23 patients have successfully had the implant fitted and another seven are hoping to undergo the procedure.
and without that it's just lucky.
Could the company just give each employee $1500 per year (or whatever) for hardware expenses, and let the people decide for themselves whether they want more memory, a bigger/second monitor, or whatever? Certainly wouldn't work everywhere, but in small companies (without bulk-purchasing deals) it might not be more expensive or less effective than cookie-cutter standard workstations for everyone.
This actually answers the original question! (How did that happen?)
How often do most people make a detailed review of their personal spending? Not every month. When they do review it, they probably want to see at least six or seven months (preferably two years for year-on-year comparison). This sounds fairly normal to me. Check the monthly statements to see that they all look about right, but download the digital version to your analysis database when you have a day or two available for introspection.
If you think there is a good security reason that the bank should not make older records available, then that's fair enough, but the fact that someone only gets around to making a full review every May doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his spending in August. If he knows that he's not going to look at the data until May, why should he need to set a reminder to download it piecewise every month just to get around a limitation of the bank's system?
But do they have sharks on which to mount them?
Let me re-phrase: By the time Europe had deployed the GSM system, which included the useful little SMS feature for sneaking short message packets in the spare bandwidth, North America had already invested heavily in the completely incompatible AMPS system, which did not incorporate this feature.
Sorry for the confusion. I thought the "Short Message Service" connection to GSM made that the obvious reference. The existing legacy systems in Europe did not have the momentum to justify ignoring the advantages of GSM (insert arguments for nationalized telecommunication infrastructure here, or maybe the install bases were just comparatively small), while North America had already standardized on AMPS, and it took another decade or two before the GSM protocols (in a different frequency range) were widely available there.
By the time Europe defined and installed a cell network (GSM), America already had a large legacy (AMPS) network that did not support SMS.
I think you missed the point there. Let's assume that for most bad jobs there exist jobs that are worse. That's normally going to be true by any definition of "bad job" that you want to pick. Just because worse jobs exist does not mean that you should feel lucky for the bad job that you have. That doesn't mean that quitting on-air after 18 months is the best first step in exploring your options, but if nobody is willing to ask for better working conditions, and to back it up by leaving (or refusing overtime or striking or calling government safety inspectors or whatever) when they are not satisfied, those conditions will get worse for everyone.
Ok, so some people have decided to describe the universe from the point of view of the non-inertial reference frame in which they have grown up. I assume this is because they either (a) really like using incredibly complicated mathematics to describe even local celestial motion, or (b) don't expect to have a job in aerospace any time soon, and don't care. I'm guessing that most of them fall into category b, but I don't think that makes the claim incorrect. Just inconvenient for anyone who actually needs to do anything about it.
Geosynchronous orbits and most hiking trails are already described in this reference frame, so it's not completely without use.
Are you suggesting that wouldn't meet the goal of being "fun?"
But if the failure rate is lower on similar devices from other manufacturers, then it could have been designed better.
Either there are so many Toyotas out there that they are showing up a general problem with people (all the other manufacturers sell so few cars that their uncontrolled acceleration problems don't count as a trend), or a disproportionate number of bad drivers buy Toyotas (the failure rates for different populations do not offer a fair comparison), or there is a problem with the car.
It's also possible that the failure rate on other vehicles is the same, but that fact just hasn't been noticed by the media. I would have expected Toyota to point that one out by now, if it were the case.
Basically, sounds like the vanilla Skype client is not ready to adopt this technology on their iPhone apps, but Fring already has, using Skype's API. This makes Skype's devs look bad...
It would also make the API look bad if this over-extends it (i.e. using it "in a way it wasn’t designed to be used" as Skype claims), resulting in reduced reliability. Skype is trying to build a reputation for being as reliable as the fixed telephone networks which, whatever else you might say about them, are pretty damn reliable. Something that usually works, but sometimes gets turned off without notice (like Skype claims happened last Friday) is not going to compete with the predictable (if boring and audio-only) plain-old-telephone-service.
Proof that MD5 isn't secure. They were able to reverse-engineer a coherent mission statement that hashes to their encrypted secret message. Never trust a signed MD5 hash again.
I expect the ultra-low-power messages to be so rare (small packets with long, asynchronous delays between) that you won't see significant interference from that. When they are not sending, they have no signal; when they are sending, they don't send much. That's how they save power. "Classic" Bluetooth uses adaptive hopping to avoid interference with local wireless signals by dropping channels from the sequence if they show unusually high error rates. You shouldn't have a problem using it next to a WiFi device.
Yes. That's the idea. The low-power uses the same set of frequencies, just in a different way. I'm not sure whether you will be able to see the data from your pedometer on the phone while you are simultaneously having a conversation using a connected headset, but significant re-use of components is certainly designed in. There will be chips (such as those designed for phones) that support low-power as well as other modes. An often-cited scenario is to receive a call on your phone, read the caller name on your watch, then pick up the call with your headset; and your watch should still give wristwatch-like battery life.
... or how every person has a Segway in their home now.
That announcement would get attention: "Look under your conference seat! You get a Segway! You get a Segway! Everybody gets a Segway!"
The YouTube video of it would get more views than a piano-playing cat.
Yes, that's what I meant. I'm completely convinced that it does not exist. But, if it does exist, then we've made a big mistake somewhere. It would be worse than proving P = NP. Writing a proof that makes life incredibly inconvenient for as many people as possible is what wins awards in mathematics, which is another difference between mathematicians and engineers.
You're thinking like an engineer. This person is a mathematician. It's not about being useful, it's about being able to find (and prove) the answer. If you can prove what the last digit of pi is, then you will become a very famous person. Even if it doesn't help you measure the internal volume of a grain silo, it will destroy enough important theory that nobody will be able to call it irrelevant.
Finding how rules interact is for mathematicians. Finding which rules we are playing by is for physicists. Playing the game is for engineers.
do you *really* think that the laws of physics will ever be less important?
Right, but which of those rules won't change. F=ma? Good approximation for large, slow things, but not actually true since we found out about the speed of light. What happens when we explain dark matter and dark energy? Physics is all subject to change, since it tries to approximate a set of rules that we aren't really sure about. Mathematics is constant because it writes its own rules.
The perfect tattoo: in a single 72-point font, the last digit of Pi.
Backup plan: your five top choices for laws of physics that we all know to be true today, but that we will know to be false before you die. Then you can cross them out as they are disproven.
In computer science or electrical engineering, it would be unusual to submit a journal paper for which you hadn't hardened the content through a conference or two. An "original paper" doesn't mean it has to be the first time you have published the individual ideas; just the first time you have collected them into a journal article.
Just give them a cruise ship with an armed escort, and be done with it already.
I like the idea. Just for comparison, we should see what a few of the G20 navies would claim as the cost to use a carrier group for a four or five days.
Of course, the image of the G20 leaders meeting in a floating fortress might send a "we're under siege" message to the public, but at least the security arrangements would be simpler.
American football is short bursts of incredibly intricate plays in which every player is doing something worth analysis, and it provides long pauses during which that analysis can be shown from every angle possible in a three-dimensional world. The game we are talking about here is on a different time scale, in which players don't have so many set plays (since it doesn't start from the more-or-less known configuration of two separate groups facing each other), so every player needs to be inventive and adapt as the play progresses. There are also very few times when a producer can be sure nothing interesting is going to happen, so replays need to be kept to a minimum, and following the continually changing strategies might be more difficult with frequent camera-angle changes.
Also, I suspect there is a single feed for the coverage (can someone confirm?) so a video producer needs to be extra confident before interrupting the feed to however many networks to show a replay that might overrun the play that makes the game. For most American football games, I think the coverage is bought by a single network, and the person selecting the camera angles and replays works for the same people as do the announcers, so they may have more freedom to try things out.
I would also be interested in seeing what the coverage in the U.S. actually looks like (including the half-time and full-time replays), and comparing it with BBC/ITV broadcasts. Maybe we are not talking about the same thing.