As for being tougher, my understanding is that it's far more scratch resistant than gorilla glass, but not necessarily as shatter resistant.
fyi, scratch resistence is also a measure of shatter resistence, so if a substance is more scratch resistant than another, it is also more shatter resistant, at least that's what I just read in an articled about sapphire linked from somewhere else in this thread.
Also, there is some speculation on several different sites that Apple may not intend to use sapphire for the screen, but instead for the camera lens. They currently use it on the camera lens and the home button.
That (external) speculation sounds kind if silly... considering there are lots of other teeny tiny parts in iOS devices that the cost of which probably is more volitile and fluctuates more than the price of synthetic sapphire. So for a billion dollars, it seems like an investment that would take decades to pay for itself.
I wonder if it's something they could use in other things that don't currently use Gorilla Glass, like macbook screens?
That is interesting, and would absolutely justify a billion dollar investment if that is their intention, because they would need a metric shitton of sapphire to pull that off. My guess is its just for the iPhone/iTouch screens, because the idea is already out there and being used for mobile device screens, and Apple sells a lot of iPhones, which I think would amount to enough sapphire needed to make it worth it to the Apple bean counters.
The only thing it's hurting is the other people looking for sapphire display covers like was mentioned a couple months back.
Personally, I'm on the Gorilla Glass bandwagon.
It's:
Stronger
Stronger
Cheaper & faster to produce
apple can pretty much do what it wants and they have plenty of money so it's not like it's a gamble at this point. $1bn is not going to dent their bank.
I own a couple of their devices, but I've personally relegated them down to be things I don't even carry around, and the interface always makes me feel like I'm using one of those kid's toy computers that has like 6 buttons with pictures on them (the cow says Mooooo).
I to am on the Gorilla Glass bandwagon as well, and a big big fan of Corning. But Gorilla Glass is under patent. Synthetic Sapphire has been around since 1902, and it was cheap back then. Sapphire is hard... 9 on the Mohs scale, and the only substance harder is natural and synthetic diamond.
I find it difficult to believe... so...do you have any references that says Gorilla Glass is cheaper and harder than Sapphire?
Did you mean "there are no more novel, original ideas"?
Yes, that is what I meant. Nice catch. I wrote the exact wrong thing, and yet you still were able to understand what I meant. I should really slow down when I respond to posts. Thanks.
If so my answer would be (A) Bullshit.
Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure your answer has value. heh, just kidding. My answer to that is "prove it." Show me this novel and orginal idea, that is new and not based on what came before, and is not standing on the shoulders of giants.
and (B) So? Then there's no more need for patents.
I don't see how you can legitamately draw that conclusion, certainly not by what you wrote subsequently. Why don't you dumb up your reasoning for me a little bit, if you're so inclined, I would appreciate it (if you're serious).
They were always a social contract of dubious benefit to begin with.
...says someone obviously biased agianst the existence of patents. Certainly there are unncessary patents hurting innovation. But those are the exception. The purpose of patents is not to prevent innovation, but to protect the IP of the patent holder for an extremely reasonable period, in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process. Without the patent system, an inventor has no incentive to share their invention with anyone, possibly to the extreme detriment of society.
Copyright is not a good way to describe patents... copyright is out of control (Disney, et al., yada yada yada), and the public domain is suffering for it. Not every patent is unncessary, certainly not to the inventor or patent holder who, very often, has a lot invested in their innovation. I don't think you would be perfectly happy slaving over a marketable innovation for the better part of your life only to have me copy the idea, and effectively steal profit from you, the very wind from your sails, the moment you share the innovation or a day after you finally achieve that wonderful goal of tagging it and bringing it to market.
Innovation tends to surge in countries that remove their patent system.
I am not aware of this. Obviously, you must have some specific examples. Please share them so I know what you're talking about, as I'd like to examine these innovation "surges" myself. Because, as it stands, it appears that you just made this up out of thin air because you don't like patents for some reason, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why.
My point is you can be validly awarded a patent on something that is not original or novel in any way, but it is being applied in a way that original patent did not specifically cover.
*Only* if the invention is also something novel and non-obvious to one skilled in the field. Otherwise it's something that anyone so inclined could be reasonably expected to create given a reason to do so, and the "invention" offers society no benefit to compensate it for granting the inventor government-backed monopoly rights.
I'm nearly certain the US Patent Office is using a broader definition of "novel" and "non-obvious" than you are. And merely creating something new doesn't cut it... one must also understand and document in the patent application what it is exactly and the correct and undeniable mechanisms that permit to function.
Remember, like copyright, patents aren't an expression of some sacred right to exclusivity, they're a limited deprivation of the natural right to mimicry that is granted in order to encourage creators to be more prolific and provide more value to society.
Again, using copyright as an example is not the way to go... because the state of copyright as it stands today is exactly as you describe
they remain a begrudging anomaly in computer science pedagogy
Here we go yet again. We have an OP that can't seem to grasp what computer science is and what it isn't, yet it doesn't stop them from waving the term around like a flag. And we have post after post after post of obviously extremely intelligent and likely capable programmers that, perhaps even once studied computer science, and still insist on ignorantly equating "programming" or software development with "computer science."
What the Hell is wrong with you people? And don't think my animosity towards you ridiculous usurpers of an entire field that predates "programming" and software by thousands of years, that you (all of you) apparently and obviously know absolutely nothing about (including what it is and isn't), is misplaced, no more than yours would be towards me if I continually insisted I worked in medicine because I work behind the front counter cash register and sell bandaids and aspirin at your local drug store. (And I don't mean to insinuate that programmers are beneath computer scientists the way a counter clerk is beneath a medical doctor... I'm just giving an example in metaphor, and using hyperbole so that what is in your thick skulls will finally comprehend that you need to stop using the term "computer science" when it is completely irrelevant to the subject... which very often happens to be programming and software development, very noble professions that do not need to be propped up as something that they are not, which is, namely, computer science.)
By now, I have a lot of posts such as this complaining that the term "computer science" is being abused and really watered down as to mean more than it is which ultimately has the effect of changing it to mean almost nothing at all. Usually, I focus on the first word in the phrase... "computer" (which isn't you damn alienware linux and supergaming laptop any more than a ringworm is jewelry). But I'm going to try a different approach so you can see how ignorant you're being and why I'm so fucking pissed off about it.
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic process that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the Universe. Science is the process of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such observation, experimentation and research. If you're not doing this, as defined quite necessarily and ordinarily, then you cannot possibly be doing "computer science," because the second word in that phrase is not a trick, is not a homonym for another word I am unaware of, nor is it incidental, but quite very specific. If you're not doing science, i.e. observation, hypothesis, methodical, procedural and repeatable experimentation, and drawing conclusions from the results of that experimentation, then, again to be clear, you're not doing computer science.
Now that we have that cleared up, allow me finish this post before returning to my garage for a bit of mechanical engineering, as I think by now my oil pan has drained all the oil, and I can thus complete the oil and filter change (see what I did there, you stubborn morons??? I'm mocking you, because you damn well deserve it.).
To address the fragment from the OP that I quoted above: its completely false. Perhaps programming courses do not always include any treatment of ethics... idk. I'm not a programmer, I never studied programming, and I wouldn't presume to talk about programming as though I were some kind of expert. But every single legitimate Computer Science curriculum I am aware of, including the one that nearly killed me some 20 years ago, has a course in ethical responsibility that is manditory for graduation.
I was speaking in hyperbole... and of course I figured you and team and co take the data seriously... but no one was mentioning it; I thought it worth pointing out a different perspective. But still, compared to the data, the systems, as long as they are caretaking the data properly, are incidental, and from this perspective, irrelevant, as far as what the systems actually are. Thus it (or it should) follows that spending more time focusing on incrimental patches to incidental systems at the expense of spending due time or rational contemplation focusing on the persistence of the vastly more important data seems counter, or skew, to how time should be spent. (Fwiw, I think change management is a very "good thing," but also I think that having groups of employees spending time in meetings, any meetings, kill a company. Nothing ever gets done in meetings... its all "ok, here's reports, and here's what we want to go and do now," when anyone that has ever taken meetings knows that it never (ug, I mean rarely ever) has anything to do with how some initiative works/plays out... its just a way to synchronize intellectual capital of human resources, which can be done far more quicky, effectively, with an email.)
Yes, but... think about it, there are no more non-novel, original ideas. And there are other considerations, such as the purpose of the thing. For example, you just can't patent an electro magnet, but you can (or could reasonably recently) patent an MRI; you can't patent an automatic ball pitcher (anymore), but you can patent a gun that uses baseballs as amunition, also you could probably get a patent on a auto-baseball throwing "car denter and windshield breaker." My point is you can be validly awarded a patent on something that is not original or novel in any way, but it is being applied in a way that original patent did not specifically cover.
I'm nearly certain the basic concept has been around a lot longer than a century, and probably at least 2 or 3 millenia and more, when rudimentary optics (a nice way to say "holes") were used to view, say, a performance of dancing women behind a partition, in one respect, or to view minature depictions (a nice way to say "carvings" or "sketches") of women in various submissive or compromising positions in another. And I don't think this and what you've generously shared is going to matter to the clerks that approve Apple's patents( that's plural–because there are at least two Apple patent applications that, if either or both are awarded, would likely prevent -hypothetically, or on paper, prior to litigation that makes it so- any from bringing the completed concept to market). But before we condemn the individuals that do ultimately and probably infamously sign off the approvals , we should recognize that they are not crusaders or villians but just people doing their job, like all non-elected government employees. We don't really know the rules a patent clerk must follow in the execution of their duties. I'd really like to see a reply to an innacurate post that begins: "IAAFPC (I am a federal patent clerk)..." or "IAAPA (I am a patent attorney)...."
Dang, I had to go digging for that patent url, when less than a week ago it was someone else's story. Its only slightly important to note that I'm not the only one that remembered this, and that the idea is somewhat currently in the collective consciousness. I figured when I saw it that it was going to be one of those patents intended to prevent any such thing from ever making it to market, for whatever reason Apple might not want it developed. But now I really hope Apple has a viable product for release whether they're granted a patent or not.
Well... you're referencing the wrong patent there, and should Apple be granted a patent on their 2008 application for a strikingly similar idea, then yes, quite clearly this DIY smartphone based HMD would violate their patent (if it was produced and sold by a company that could be sued). And quit you're belly aching, I had this exact idea in July 2007 within days of owning my first smartphone. Should the concept be perfected, so that it was universal to any smartphone, and sent to market, I expect they would sell amazingly well. Whomever holds the patent could make a handsome sum of money just for strealing my idea.
There is no way we would allow a sysadmin to patch anything at any time without some level of oversight
Change management is not your enemy
First let me say I really like it when people like what they do, and it sounds like you like what you do, take it seriously, and probably do it well.
However, this being a techy site, the commenters, yourself included, seem to inflate the importance of the one thing that is irrellivant and incidental. And by that I mean, of course, the system, the OS, and whatever state it may be in. Let me repeat, the OS is irrellivant and incidental. Thus, any time, effort, meetings, plans, etc., focusing on them at the expense of the state of what is important are an incredible waste of time and resources. I don't mean to belittle your job, btw, but merely to point out what every commenter I have looked at on this story seems to miss. The damn systems don't matter! (I am a systems admininstrator, myself, btw).
What matters? The data.
Change management is, in its own way, important for the reasons it is important and not for what those who have positively described it here. It is important because it tells us: "What the Hell have we done? How did we get here? What the Hell are we doing? Now what?" It is history, and it is intent. But it should only be as important as the systems themselves. And, again, the systems themselves don't matter one whit, especially if you have emergency procedures for when something breaks (i.e. fix it, or if fixing it is going to take too much time or effort, just reinstall it). So if you have a change-management-heavy operation, you're wasting a lot of time and effort for no great benefit or reason at all.
Tell me, at your company, is there a group whose sole responsibility is to manage the Data, and provide oversight concerning its reliability or how it is used or managed by the systems or users? Well, then its crazy that any resources would be sacrificed for the sake of the systems.
Systems administrators and the IT department are like the teams of airline mechanics. They're very specialized and very good at what they do because, in a relative way of course, lives depend on it. But what is important is not the damn planes but the cargo... i.e. in getting someone or something from point A to point B successfully. Does it matter if the plane is 40 years old? Not really, if that 40 year old plane does an identical job to a brand new plane. And we can replace the planes with high-speed trains, or (hopefully someday) teleportation. The planes themselves, and the use of them, are incidental, and irrelevant; they don't really matter.
In conclusion, I wouldn't say to the OP "get a new job!" as others have. That's not very helpful. I'd say, if you have control over these systems, and now you have to champion each new patch and get every patch approved, then switch everything to a system that will require less patches. Running Windows servers? Migrate to linux or a *nix variant. You'll still get security patches and bug fixes coming down, but far far less than with a Microsoft based operation, and if you miss a few months of patches, nothing really bad will happen (like on a Windows system). The world will still turn and the work will continue.
They're obviously related, but one of these we can measure directly, the other we cannot. Ergo, we get our proxy suitably low until we find a point where the trade-offs are acceptable.
You're again making their same mistake. They and you seem to be focused on the product, what your prejudices already tell you what it is and what it should be. I can't make you see the wrong-headedness of your beliefs. And it absolutely is false that we do not have the ability to measure perceptive capacities. Let me put it this way: everyone believes they are trying to design a head-mounted display... but the reality is they are producing a mind-mounted display and ignoring this! That is why they will continue to come up short, forever, until they realize what they are really trying to do.
Carmack is closer to the truth, but still misses. Really, it's not that the problem is latency of the device, but of our brain or conscious/unconscious minds' ability to notice the latency. You may think that is saying the same thing, but it is not. Manufacturers are putting their focus on the wrong thing. The device works exactly as it's spec called, exactly as it was designed. It is insufficient because they did not measure this stuff at where it matters, and apparently they are going to continue with this style of trial and error or hit and miss development, and releasing these devices that are insufficient for sensory immersion. What the manufactures are effectively doing is making a shoe for a foot they never see or even try to look at, and never seem to get any feedback from until the shoe is completely fabricated with all the bells and whistles, and then they try to shoehorn it onto a foot... then they start to see what's wrong but in the wrong way, and they go back to making another shoe with the little they learned from the shoe being too tight or too big for the foot.... instead of learning and understanding everything they need to about the foot first to make a shoe that fits and is comfortable and does what they intended it to do.
These things really aren't going to hit their stride until they start using Transparent OLED displays so instead of cloaking you in VR it's overlays info on the real world.
Nope... that's not going to help them "hit their stride," or become the next radio, TV, iPod, etc. No manufacturer of HMD has yet figured out what they have. They are getting hints from their R&D, but they, and everyone, are so excited about how cool VR is that they are ignoring the mechanism that allows immersive VR to occur, and it has nothing to do with the resolution of the display components. It has to do with the human brain, our capacity for the suspension of belief, not of our conscious mind only, but of the semi-conscious awareness of what ALL our senses (not just the regular suspects) are reporting. In the research and science of brain and mind is where the breakthroughs will occur. Also, as in all technology weighted heavily towards vision, gaming will not drive this forward to manufacturers hopes of a regular, ordinary consumer device that everyone will soon have just like a TV. Only the pornography industry will do that, as only it always has and and only it always will.
Computer Science has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY INTERNET, of "things" or otherwise.
Computer Science needs to change its name so everyone that thinks they know what a computer is can stuff it up their ass. Because CS has nothing to do with computers, and nothing at all to do with software or programming. The "Computer" in "Computer Science" is not, I repeat, is not synonymous with the thing you call "computer" that's on your desk or lap. It means simply "calculator," i.e. one who calculates, or, precisely, that which computes, or to make it really simple for them, that which reckons. They should call it Reckoner Science. Then no one would be confused, no one would fantacize about studying it (because they just love their computer!!) when they go off to college in a year or so, and HR morons would stop requiring CS degreed Windows Administrators or help desk monkeys because that is ridiculous. Mechanics don't need Mechanical Engineering degrees, Nurses don't need an M.D., and corporate america does not need specialized mathematicians furiously installing java browser plugin security updates on all the machines on their network. Think of Computer Sciece as math... then you'll understand how stupid everyone sounds when they say anything about Computer Science. Be a programmer if you want. Programmers do not need a Computer Science degree, or any degree for that matter.
I'm just going put this here:
Computer Science (abbreviated CS or CompSci) is the scientific and practical approach to computation and its applications. It is the systematic study of the feasibility, structure, expression, and mechanization of the methodicalprocesses (or algorithms) that underlie the acquisition, representation, processing, storage, communication of, andaccess to information, whether such information is encoded as bits in a computer memory or transcribed engines and protein structures in a human cell. A computer scientist specializes in the theory of computation and the design of computational systems
Then, humans started coming with very silly ideas about the model actually being the reality it models.
Humans aren't real. They are merely a hodge-podge of organs acting in concert which obey the standard medical model. Organs are simply groups of cells that act in concert, which obey the standard biological model. Cells are made of molecules which obey the standard organic chemical model. Molecules are merely structured atoms obeying the standard chemical model. Atoms are composed of bosons, fermions and hadrons, and hadrons are small clumps of quarks I think, and all these subatomics obey the standard nuclear model (aka the "Standard Model"). Bear in mind, all matter by volume is 99.999%+ empty space, and that none of the models I mentioned are empirically real; they are abstract. We just use them to help explain our observations, and they help the math come out neat. Thus, as humans are comprised of aggregates that are also comprised of more fundamental aggregates, etc., they're mostly just a convenience of language.
Do Metagods command Metametatrons? I like to think so. And that each, from their individual perspectives, due to scaling self-similarity and relativistic effects, always appear to be and perceive that they are all one.
may just have led to most young people not having a clue and assuming astrology = astronomy
It is likely both studies were born at the same time. Maybe 10K years before the invention of agriculture and the domestication of maize in southern Mexico, 18K-20K years ago the first scientists looked up at the stars and drew what they saw on a cave wall in Lascaux, France... and at the same time the first astrologer connected the stars like dots, and drew animals, which tell a story to them, which are no doubt related to far older oral traditions about which we'll likely never know anything.
I find it perplexing why, these days, some are so hostile towards studies such as astrology or religion. While science is slicing up brains looking for the mind (and never finding it), other disciplines can tell us more about ourselves without all the ick. Even if astrology is mumbo jumbo, it reveals just enough about humans to be interesting.
Thanks for posting. I find it quite annoying that those that insist on doing as they like, rationality be damned, will make up things to support their claim. It makes perfect sense that lower speed limits save lives. However, I'm almost certain that the reason for the 55/65 MPH speed limits is due to fuel efficiency. At around that speed, the drag of air friction means that there will be diminishing fuel efficency as speed increases.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough! It didn't sound right to me either... but I was sure I had just read something to that effect minutes before I posted.
As for being tougher, my understanding is that it's far more scratch resistant than gorilla glass, but not necessarily as shatter resistant.
fyi, scratch resistence is also a measure of shatter resistence, so if a substance is more scratch resistant than another, it is also more shatter resistant, at least that's what I just read in an articled about sapphire linked from somewhere else in this thread.
Also, there is some speculation on several different sites that Apple may not intend to use sapphire for the screen, but instead for the camera lens. They currently use it on the camera lens and the home button.
That (external) speculation sounds kind if silly... considering there are lots of other teeny tiny parts in iOS devices that the cost of which probably is more volitile and fluctuates more than the price of synthetic sapphire. So for a billion dollars, it seems like an investment that would take decades to pay for itself.
I wonder if it's something they could use in other things that don't currently use Gorilla Glass, like macbook screens?
That is interesting, and would absolutely justify a billion dollar investment if that is their intention, because they would need a metric shitton of sapphire to pull that off. My guess is its just for the iPhone/iTouch screens, because the idea is already out there and being used for mobile device screens, and Apple sells a lot of iPhones, which I think would amount to enough sapphire needed to make it worth it to the Apple bean counters.
(b) No true Scotsman would say aluminum, but aluminium.
FTFY.
I guess you forgot where you were.
The only thing it's hurting is the other people looking for sapphire display covers like was mentioned a couple months back.
Personally, I'm on the Gorilla Glass bandwagon. It's: Stronger Stronger Cheaper & faster to produce
apple can pretty much do what it wants and they have plenty of money so it's not like it's a gamble at this point. $1bn is not going to dent their bank.
I own a couple of their devices, but I've personally relegated them down to be things I don't even carry around, and the interface always makes me feel like I'm using one of those kid's toy computers that has like 6 buttons with pictures on them (the cow says Mooooo).
I to am on the Gorilla Glass bandwagon as well, and a big big fan of Corning. But Gorilla Glass is under patent. Synthetic Sapphire has been around since 1902, and it was cheap back then. Sapphire is hard... 9 on the Mohs scale, and the only substance harder is natural and synthetic diamond. I find it difficult to believe... so...do you have any references that says Gorilla Glass is cheaper and harder than Sapphire?
Did you mean "there are no more novel, original ideas"?
Yes, that is what I meant. Nice catch. I wrote the exact wrong thing, and yet you still were able to understand what I meant. I should really slow down when I respond to posts. Thanks.
If so my answer would be (A) Bullshit.
Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure your answer has value. heh, just kidding. My answer to that is "prove it." Show me this novel and orginal idea, that is new and not based on what came before, and is not standing on the shoulders of giants.
and (B) So? Then there's no more need for patents.
I don't see how you can legitamately draw that conclusion, certainly not by what you wrote subsequently. Why don't you dumb up your reasoning for me a little bit, if you're so inclined, I would appreciate it (if you're serious).
They were always a social contract of dubious benefit to begin with.
...says someone obviously biased agianst the existence of patents. Certainly there are unncessary patents hurting innovation. But those are the exception. The purpose of patents is not to prevent innovation, but to protect the IP of the patent holder for an extremely reasonable period, in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process. Without the patent system, an inventor has no incentive to share their invention with anyone, possibly to the extreme detriment of society.
Copyright is not a good way to describe patents... copyright is out of control (Disney, et al., yada yada yada), and the public domain is suffering for it. Not every patent is unncessary, certainly not to the inventor or patent holder who, very often, has a lot invested in their innovation. I don't think you would be perfectly happy slaving over a marketable innovation for the better part of your life only to have me copy the idea, and effectively steal profit from you, the very wind from your sails, the moment you share the innovation or a day after you finally achieve that wonderful goal of tagging it and bringing it to market.
Innovation tends to surge in countries that remove their patent system.
I am not aware of this. Obviously, you must have some specific examples. Please share them so I know what you're talking about, as I'd like to examine these innovation "surges" myself. Because, as it stands, it appears that you just made this up out of thin air because you don't like patents for some reason, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why.
My point is you can be validly awarded a patent on something that is not original or novel in any way, but it is being applied in a way that original patent did not specifically cover.
*Only* if the invention is also something novel and non-obvious to one skilled in the field. Otherwise it's something that anyone so inclined could be reasonably expected to create given a reason to do so, and the "invention" offers society no benefit to compensate it for granting the inventor government-backed monopoly rights.
I'm nearly certain the US Patent Office is using a broader definition of "novel" and "non-obvious" than you are. And merely creating something new doesn't cut it... one must also understand and document in the patent application what it is exactly and the correct and undeniable mechanisms that permit to function.
Remember, like copyright, patents aren't an expression of some sacred right to exclusivity, they're a limited deprivation of the natural right to mimicry that is granted in order to encourage creators to be more prolific and provide more value to society.
Again, using copyright as an example is not the way to go... because the state of copyright as it stands today is exactly as you describe
they remain a begrudging anomaly in computer science pedagogy
Here we go yet again. We have an OP that can't seem to grasp what computer science is and what it isn't, yet it doesn't stop them from waving the term around like a flag. And we have post after post after post of obviously extremely intelligent and likely capable programmers that, perhaps even once studied computer science, and still insist on ignorantly equating "programming" or software development with "computer science."
What the Hell is wrong with you people? And don't think my animosity towards you ridiculous usurpers of an entire field that predates "programming" and software by thousands of years, that you (all of you) apparently and obviously know absolutely nothing about (including what it is and isn't), is misplaced, no more than yours would be towards me if I continually insisted I worked in medicine because I work behind the front counter cash register and sell bandaids and aspirin at your local drug store. (And I don't mean to insinuate that programmers are beneath computer scientists the way a counter clerk is beneath a medical doctor... I'm just giving an example in metaphor, and using hyperbole so that what is in your thick skulls will finally comprehend that you need to stop using the term "computer science" when it is completely irrelevant to the subject... which very often happens to be programming and software development, very noble professions that do not need to be propped up as something that they are not, which is, namely, computer science.)
By now, I have a lot of posts such as this complaining that the term "computer science" is being abused and really watered down as to mean more than it is which ultimately has the effect of changing it to mean almost nothing at all. Usually, I focus on the first word in the phrase... "computer" (which isn't you damn alienware linux and supergaming laptop any more than a ringworm is jewelry). But I'm going to try a different approach so you can see how ignorant you're being and why I'm so fucking pissed off about it.
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic process that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the Universe. Science is the process of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method , as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such observation, experimentation and research. If you're not doing this, as defined quite necessarily and ordinarily, then you cannot possibly be doing "computer science," because the second word in that phrase is not a trick, is not a homonym for another word I am unaware of, nor is it incidental, but quite very specific. If you're not doing science, i.e. observation, hypothesis, methodical, procedural and repeatable experimentation, and drawing conclusions from the results of that experimentation, then, again to be clear, you're not doing computer science .
Now that we have that cleared up, allow me finish this post before returning to my garage for a bit of mechanical engineering, as I think by now my oil pan has drained all the oil, and I can thus complete the oil and filter change (see what I did there, you stubborn morons??? I'm mocking you, because you damn well deserve it.).
To address the fragment from the OP that I quoted above: its completely false. Perhaps programming courses do not always include any treatment of ethics... idk. I'm not a programmer, I never studied programming, and I wouldn't presume to talk about programming as though I were some kind of expert. But every single legitimate Computer Science curriculum I am aware of, including the one that nearly killed me some 20 years ago, has a course in ethical responsibility that is manditory for graduation.
I was speaking in hyperbole... and of course I figured you and team and co take the data seriously... but no one was mentioning it; I thought it worth pointing out a different perspective. But still, compared to the data, the systems, as long as they are caretaking the data properly, are incidental, and from this perspective, irrelevant, as far as what the systems actually are. Thus it (or it should) follows that spending more time focusing on incrimental patches to incidental systems at the expense of spending due time or rational contemplation focusing on the persistence of the vastly more important data seems counter, or skew, to how time should be spent. (Fwiw, I think change management is a very "good thing," but also I think that having groups of employees spending time in meetings, any meetings, kill a company. Nothing ever gets done in meetings... its all "ok, here's reports, and here's what we want to go and do now," when anyone that has ever taken meetings knows that it never (ug, I mean rarely ever) has anything to do with how some initiative works/plays out... its just a way to synchronize intellectual capital of human resources, which can be done far more quicky, effectively, with an email.)
Yes, but... think about it, there are no more non-novel, original ideas. And there are other considerations, such as the purpose of the thing. For example, you just can't patent an electro magnet, but you can (or could reasonably recently) patent an MRI; you can't patent an automatic ball pitcher (anymore), but you can patent a gun that uses baseballs as amunition, also you could probably get a patent on a auto-baseball throwing "car denter and windshield breaker." My point is you can be validly awarded a patent on something that is not original or novel in any way, but it is being applied in a way that original patent did not specifically cover.
I'm nearly certain the basic concept has been around a lot longer than a century, and probably at least 2 or 3 millenia and more, when rudimentary optics (a nice way to say "holes") were used to view, say, a performance of dancing women behind a partition, in one respect, or to view minature depictions (a nice way to say "carvings" or "sketches") of women in various submissive or compromising positions in another. And I don't think this and what you've generously shared is going to matter to the clerks that approve Apple's patents( that's plural–because there are at least two Apple patent applications that, if either or both are awarded, would likely prevent -hypothetically, or on paper, prior to litigation that makes it so- any from bringing the completed concept to market). But before we condemn the individuals that do ultimately and probably infamously sign off the approvals , we should recognize that they are not crusaders or villians but just people doing their job, like all non-elected government employees. We don't really know the rules a patent clerk must follow in the execution of their duties. I'd really like to see a reply to an innacurate post that begins: "IAAFPC (I am a federal patent clerk)..." or "IAAPA (I am a patent attorney)...."
Dang, I had to go digging for that patent url, when less than a week ago it was someone else's story. Its only slightly important to note that I'm not the only one that remembered this, and that the idea is somewhat currently in the collective consciousness. I figured when I saw it that it was going to be one of those patents intended to prevent any such thing from ever making it to market, for whatever reason Apple might not want it developed. But now I really hope Apple has a viable product for release whether they're granted a patent or not.
Well... you're referencing the wrong patent there, and should Apple be granted a patent on their 2008 application for a strikingly similar idea, then yes, quite clearly this DIY smartphone based HMD would violate their patent (if it was produced and sold by a company that could be sued). And quit you're belly aching, I had this exact idea in July 2007 within days of owning my first smartphone. Should the concept be perfected, so that it was universal to any smartphone, and sent to market, I expect they would sell amazingly well. Whomever holds the patent could make a handsome sum of money just for strealing my idea.
There is no way we would allow a sysadmin to patch anything at any time without some level of oversight
Change management is not your enemy
First let me say I really like it when people like what they do, and it sounds like you like what you do, take it seriously, and probably do it well.
However, this being a techy site, the commenters, yourself included, seem to inflate the importance of the one thing that is irrellivant and incidental. And by that I mean, of course, the system, the OS, and whatever state it may be in. Let me repeat, the OS is irrellivant and incidental. Thus, any time, effort, meetings, plans, etc., focusing on them at the expense of the state of what is important are an incredible waste of time and resources. I don't mean to belittle your job, btw, but merely to point out what every commenter I have looked at on this story seems to miss. The damn systems don't matter! (I am a systems admininstrator, myself, btw).
What matters? The data.
Change management is, in its own way, important for the reasons it is important and not for what those who have positively described it here. It is important because it tells us: "What the Hell have we done? How did we get here? What the Hell are we doing? Now what?" It is history, and it is intent. But it should only be as important as the systems themselves. And, again, the systems themselves don't matter one whit, especially if you have emergency procedures for when something breaks (i.e. fix it, or if fixing it is going to take too much time or effort, just reinstall it). So if you have a change-management-heavy operation, you're wasting a lot of time and effort for no great benefit or reason at all.
Tell me, at your company, is there a group whose sole responsibility is to manage the Data, and provide oversight concerning its reliability or how it is used or managed by the systems or users? Well, then its crazy that any resources would be sacrificed for the sake of the systems.
Systems administrators and the IT department are like the teams of airline mechanics. They're very specialized and very good at what they do because, in a relative way of course, lives depend on it. But what is important is not the damn planes but the cargo... i.e. in getting someone or something from point A to point B successfully. Does it matter if the plane is 40 years old? Not really, if that 40 year old plane does an identical job to a brand new plane. And we can replace the planes with high-speed trains, or (hopefully someday) teleportation. The planes themselves, and the use of them, are incidental, and irrelevant; they don't really matter.
In conclusion, I wouldn't say to the OP "get a new job!" as others have. That's not very helpful. I'd say, if you have control over these systems, and now you have to champion each new patch and get every patch approved, then switch everything to a system that will require less patches. Running Windows servers? Migrate to linux or a *nix variant. You'll still get security patches and bug fixes coming down, but far far less than with a Microsoft based operation, and if you miss a few months of patches, nothing really bad will happen (like on a Windows system). The world will still turn and the work will continue.
They're obviously related, but one of these we can measure directly, the other we cannot. Ergo, we get our proxy suitably low until we find a point where the trade-offs are acceptable.
You're again making their same mistake. They and you seem to be focused on the product, what your prejudices already tell you what it is and what it should be. I can't make you see the wrong-headedness of your beliefs. And it absolutely is false that we do not have the ability to measure perceptive capacities. Let me put it this way: everyone believes they are trying to design a head-mounted display... but the reality is they are producing a mind-mounted display and ignoring this! That is why they will continue to come up short, forever, until they realize what they are really trying to do.
Carmack is closer to the truth, but still misses. Really, it's not that the problem is latency of the device, but of our brain or conscious/unconscious minds' ability to notice the latency. You may think that is saying the same thing, but it is not. Manufacturers are putting their focus on the wrong thing. The device works exactly as it's spec called, exactly as it was designed. It is insufficient because they did not measure this stuff at where it matters, and apparently they are going to continue with this style of trial and error or hit and miss development, and releasing these devices that are insufficient for sensory immersion. What the manufactures are effectively doing is making a shoe for a foot they never see or even try to look at, and never seem to get any feedback from until the shoe is completely fabricated with all the bells and whistles, and then they try to shoehorn it onto a foot... then they start to see what's wrong but in the wrong way, and they go back to making another shoe with the little they learned from the shoe being too tight or too big for the foot.... instead of learning and understanding everything they need to about the foot first to make a shoe that fits and is comfortable and does what they intended it to do.
These things really aren't going to hit their stride until they start using Transparent OLED displays so instead of cloaking you in VR it's overlays info on the real world.
Nope... that's not going to help them "hit their stride," or become the next radio, TV, iPod, etc. No manufacturer of HMD has yet figured out what they have. They are getting hints from their R&D, but they, and everyone, are so excited about how cool VR is that they are ignoring the mechanism that allows immersive VR to occur, and it has nothing to do with the resolution of the display components. It has to do with the human brain, our capacity for the suspension of belief, not of our conscious mind only, but of the semi-conscious awareness of what ALL our senses (not just the regular suspects) are reporting. In the research and science of brain and mind is where the breakthroughs will occur. Also, as in all technology weighted heavily towards vision, gaming will not drive this forward to manufacturers hopes of a regular, ordinary consumer device that everyone will soon have just like a TV. Only the pornography industry will do that, as only it always has and and only it always will.
Is there no longer any difference between a scientist and a practicioner?
Computer Science has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY INTERNET, of "things" or otherwise.
Computer Science needs to change its name so everyone that thinks they know what a computer is can stuff it up their ass. Because CS has nothing to do with computers, and nothing at all to do with software or programming. The "Computer" in "Computer Science" is not, I repeat, is not synonymous with the thing you call "computer" that's on your desk or lap. It means simply "calculator," i.e. one who calculates, or, precisely, that which computes, or to make it really simple for them, that which reckons. They should call it Reckoner Science. Then no one would be confused, no one would fantacize about studying it (because they just love their computer!!) when they go off to college in a year or so, and HR morons would stop requiring CS degreed Windows Administrators or help desk monkeys because that is ridiculous. Mechanics don't need Mechanical Engineering degrees, Nurses don't need an M.D., and corporate america does not need specialized mathematicians furiously installing java browser plugin security updates on all the machines on their network. Think of Computer Sciece as math... then you'll understand how stupid everyone sounds when they say anything about Computer Science. Be a programmer if you want. Programmers do not need a Computer Science degree, or any degree for that matter.
I'm just going put this here:
Then, humans started coming with very silly ideas about the model actually being the reality it models.
Humans aren't real. They are merely a hodge-podge of organs acting in concert which obey the standard medical model. Organs are simply groups of cells that act in concert, which obey the standard biological model. Cells are made of molecules which obey the standard organic chemical model. Molecules are merely structured atoms obeying the standard chemical model. Atoms are composed of bosons, fermions and hadrons, and hadrons are small clumps of quarks I think, and all these subatomics obey the standard nuclear model (aka the "Standard Model"). Bear in mind, all matter by volume is 99.999%+ empty space, and that none of the models I mentioned are empirically real; they are abstract. We just use them to help explain our observations, and they help the math come out neat. Thus, as humans are comprised of aggregates that are also comprised of more fundamental aggregates, etc., they're mostly just a convenience of language.
Still, does God have a God?
Do Metagods command Metametatrons? I like to think so. And that each, from their individual perspectives, due to scaling self-similarity and relativistic effects, always appear to be and perceive that they are all one.
the number one weight in a car is the wiring for all the electric stuff.
You mean the wiring weighs more than the engine? I doubt that.
It depends on where you park.
may just have led to most young people not having a clue and assuming astrology = astronomy
It is likely both studies were born at the same time. Maybe 10K years before the invention of agriculture and the domestication of maize in southern Mexico, 18K-20K years ago the first scientists looked up at the stars and drew what they saw on a cave wall in Lascaux, France... and at the same time the first astrologer connected the stars like dots, and drew animals, which tell a story to them, which are no doubt related to far older oral traditions about which we'll likely never know anything.
I find it perplexing why, these days, some are so hostile towards studies such as astrology or religion. While science is slicing up brains looking for the mind (and never finding it), other disciplines can tell us more about ourselves without all the ick. Even if astrology is mumbo jumbo, it reveals just enough about humans to be interesting.
there isn't a clear, universally applicable line which distinguishes all schizophrenics from all non-schizophrenics
Depending on the depth of psychosis, actually the opposite is true of accurate schizophrenia diagnoses compared to other common mental disorders. There's a simple and clear test that can determine whether you're schizophrenic: the hollow mask illusion. If you aren't fooled into seeing the concave side of the mask sticks outward, the odds you're schizophrenic increase tangentally. The more psychotic you are, the less you can see the illusion.
Thanks for posting. I find it quite annoying that those that insist on doing as they like, rationality be damned, will make up things to support their claim. It makes perfect sense that lower speed limits save lives. However, I'm almost certain that the reason for the 55/65 MPH speed limits is due to fuel efficiency. At around that speed, the drag of air friction means that there will be diminishing fuel efficency as speed increases.
I could be wrong, but I thought the Casimir force was due to quantum effects of particles appearing and disappearing?
That's odd... I was certain it had somthing to do with the misfortune that occurs should one bend over in front of a goat.