You say that now. Your career is still in its infancy. Think that you have another 40 years of work ahead of you, longer than you have been alive!
Most people by the time they are 60 are really litterally sick of working. Retiring at 65 perhaps seems reasonable, but definitely not 75. I know very few people who would have been able, let along willing, to work until 75.
Yet this is what our generation faces. A few will get rich by themselves and retire earlier, but the majority will trudge on. Given that today people over 50 in most positions are seen as "old" and essentially fit to be replaced by younger blood, I seriously wonder what will happen when the workplace is filled with truly fatigued sexagenarians.
Probably by the time we are 65 and older the only kind of work available to us will be low-pay, low skill, with few exceptions. Now is that something to look forward to ?
Interestingly there was a simulation not long ago of how long people would live if they woudn't age past a biological age of about 20-25 years.
Not aging doesn't mean people don't get sick or don't die by accident. IIRC This simulation showed people would live longer but not typically more than 120 years.
Social security is actually not really screwed right now, but might be within the next 25 years if nothing is done.
Long term, the birthrate in the US is actually fine, and SS is *not* a pyramid scheme. It currently works on the assumption that people work at their career for about 40 years, save during that time (actually pay for those on retirement) and then retire for 20 years or so living essentially off their savings. If the birthrate and deathrates are steady and retirement savings are adequate, the scheme is actually workable.
In practice the various rates (savings, pensions, etc) need to be adjusted to account for demographics, but for political reasons they are hard to adjust. This is what makes SS screwed. It needs to be reactive and far-sighted, because people by and large aren't.
I'm sort of doubtfull about all these uses. The dye may fade but this doesn't mean the substrate goes away, so with some of these uses one ends up with a kind of transparent film everywhere.
As for the soap and toothpaste I'd like to be sure these dyes are absolutely safe before I let them come near my kids.
They don't photograph every vehicle, so presumably the camera decides which cars to photograph based on radar input, and then takes the two pictures at 0.25s interval to corroborate the radar measure.
MacOS/X does the things it knows rather well, except for performance.
The other thing I can't get over is the way 64-bit is handled. First it's not at all under Panther (despite all the hype about OS/X using 64-bit G5 processors back then), and second it still isn't properly under Tiger in spite of renewed hype. Come on this is the 21st century and some of my apps *require* more than 4GB of RAM. Yes I can write a 64-bit back end to my 32-bit GUI, but this is still a horrible kludge.
Finally I find that to get a similar level of functionality under OS/X that I'm getting under Linux, I would need to buy a *lot* of shareware or other costware, and I'm not that rich.
Yes supposedly all apps that can run under Linux should be able to run under OS/X, but it effect it's not that clear cut, witness OpenOffice 2.0 for instance.
They are thughs? all of them?, without a doubt? says who ?
Why don't we kill them all and let some kind of higher being sort it out then ?
Much evidence point to the fact that most GB detainees were taken in because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sure, some of them probably are thugs, but the *point* of due process for everyone is to sort the guilty from the innocent. Since the Army did not follow any kind of due process they have a huge PR problem on their hand whereby they either declare everyone guilty without proper trial (since they don't have proper evidence) or they must admit they don't have much evidence and release a lot of detainee eventually.
Of course there are those who believe that it is better to indict and lock up a few innocent people (even perhaps many innocent people) in order to make sure the guilty don't escape.
In this case those very same people should have no objections when American hostages are taken in Iraq and elsewhere and executed. After all a few of them are bound to be CIA agents (i.e. "terrorists"), right?
And I'll bet YOUR bottom dollar that Apple will not rewrite Tiger just for x86. Just so you know, tiger's kernel is *not* 64-bit, and neither is the GUI. It only allows 64-bit applications to run.
The speed of light will not change no matter what, but otherwise I agree completely with your description, we should not be able to detect a raw change in length due to gravitational waves, however we should be still able to detect a local change in gravitational field, i.e. the local metric, precisely because the change is local due to the waves.
Intuitively this might be why two interferometer arms are necessary.
This is Apple redefining what efficient means, in typical fashion. How does Apple know my GUIs don't need to be 64-bit?
I have this medical imaging package which I'm developing. Sometimes I'm looking at datasets which don't fit in a 32-bit process (large, linked 3-d images typically). I need to sample, rotate, filter, segment and display this data in real time. I can do that under Linux/x86_64 without too much trouble.
Now under OS/X I have to split my applications into 2 processes and use IPC just to peer at the data. This is extremely inconvenient, slow and inefficient, as there is no such thing as zero-copy IPC. The best you can hope for is shared memory, and between 32-bit and 64-bit apps there are lots of limitations, so much so that I've given up porting my app to OS/X for the time being.
The truth is Apple doesn't want to go through the QA trouble of having both a 64-bit and 32-bit GUI system, something Linux and others have had for a long time.
Now permission from whom? It depends on the contract with the publisher, on whether the author is still alive, etc. It could get difficult and at any rate a lot of work to get all these permissions.
Presumably this also means a signed document to be exchanged between Google and the copyright holders for each and every book. Remember they are set to scan hundreds of thousands of books.
Publishers probably can't make a blanket decision like you suggest. They would have to contact each and every copyright holder (authors, estates, etc) and ask them the question. It would be easy enough for new books (just a line on the contract) but potentially a nightmare for old books.
There is the sticky point of all these web pages that are generated on the fly (or whose link is). Google can't index those either unless you help them.
More generally if you put together a page and don't "hard" link it in from a page that is regularly visited by Google's bots, then it won't get indexed. Definitely opt-in I'd say.
Basically, yes. It's work, and someone has to do it. The publisher probably can't make a blanket decision, they would have to speak to authors directly. Contacting all these authors or their estate for their approval is not something they'd like to do on their week-ends, you see.
You are quoting US law, things might be different in Australia (where the parent is writing from). Oz is not yet the 51st state. IANAL either, mind you.
I have created dozens upon dozens of web pages that are available to the public but not indexed in Google because no one can link to them (or the link is temporary and worthless). It's trivial to do. Google itself estimates they are indexing only about 20% at most of the total web content.
You don't have to submit your page to Google, that much is true, but it's still opt-in. Google cannot index the content of your databases unless you let them do it.
The parent works for a (presumably respectable) publisher and says they would opt in.
Amazon already has an opt-in similar project, and has had for years (just go to their site, and search with A9). Amazon has had no difficulty in securing publishers' content.
Here Google is going ahead with the opt-out idea because they want to do one-up on Amazon.
The authors (or at least their publisher) may feel they are being screwed over because their work is being used as the talent in a vast publicity campaign without them getting anything in return.
Sure the argument is that they *may* get increased sales, but again they may not, or it might be a pittance, whereas the stunt is likely to be worth a lot to Google. I can understand the authors (publishers) feeling that they should at least be asked nicely if they want to opt in such a scheme.
In this instance I'd still side with Google because what they are doing ultimately serves the public, but still, the IP belongs to the authors, it should be allowed a voice in what they can do with it (yes I know that they can "opt out", but if you think "opt in" is a lot of work for Google, similarly "opt out" is a lot of work for the publishers).
Slashdot Mirror
You say that now. Your career is still in its infancy. Think that you have another 40 years of work ahead of you, longer than you have been alive!
Most people by the time they are 60 are really litterally sick of working. Retiring at 65 perhaps seems reasonable, but definitely not 75. I know very few people who would have been able, let along willing, to work until 75.
Yet this is what our generation faces. A few will get rich by themselves and retire earlier, but the majority will trudge on. Given that today people over 50 in most positions are seen as "old" and essentially fit to be replaced by younger blood, I seriously wonder what will happen when the workplace is filled with truly fatigued sexagenarians.
Probably by the time we are 65 and older the only kind of work available to us will be low-pay, low skill, with few exceptions. Now is that something to look forward to ?
Interestingly there was a simulation not long ago of how long people would live if they woudn't age past a biological age of about 20-25 years.
Not aging doesn't mean people don't get sick or don't die by accident. IIRC This simulation showed people would live longer but not typically more than 120 years.
Social security is actually not really screwed right now, but might be within the next 25 years if nothing is done.
Long term, the birthrate in the US is actually fine, and SS is *not* a pyramid scheme. It currently works on the assumption that people work at their career for about 40 years, save during that time (actually pay for those on retirement) and then retire for 20 years or so living essentially off their savings. If the birthrate and deathrates are steady and retirement savings are adequate, the scheme is actually workable.
In practice the various rates (savings, pensions, etc) need to be adjusted to account for demographics, but for political reasons they are hard to adjust. This is what makes SS screwed. It needs to be reactive and far-sighted, because people by and large aren't.
Those are actually easier, and the antibubble site talks about thems.
You only need to make antibubbles with inner coloured water.
I'm sort of doubtfull about all these uses. The dye may fade but this doesn't mean the substrate goes away, so with some of these uses one ends up with a kind of transparent film everywhere.
As for the soap and toothpaste I'd like to be sure these dyes are absolutely safe before I let them come near my kids.
They don't photograph every vehicle, so presumably the camera decides which cars to photograph based on radar input, and then takes the two pictures at 0.25s interval to corroborate the radar measure.
> But the Mac ALWAYS works, in my experience.
MacOS/X does the things it knows rather well, except for performance.
The other thing I can't get over is the way 64-bit is handled. First it's not at all under Panther (despite all the hype about OS/X using 64-bit G5 processors back then), and second it still isn't properly under Tiger in spite of renewed hype. Come on this is the 21st century and some of my apps *require* more than 4GB of RAM. Yes I can write a 64-bit back end to my 32-bit GUI, but this is still a horrible kludge.
Finally I find that to get a similar level of functionality under OS/X that I'm getting under Linux, I would need to buy a *lot* of shareware or other costware, and I'm not that rich.
Yes supposedly all apps that can run under Linux should be able to run under OS/X, but it effect it's not that clear cut, witness OpenOffice 2.0 for instance.
Isn't that some kind of joke ? Technically Dell sells AMD CPUs as "desk accessories", OK.
Now can you buy a Dell-brand computer with an AMD CPU in it from the Dell Online Store? No.
They are thughs? all of them?, without a doubt? says who ?
Why don't we kill them all and let some kind of higher being sort it out then ?
Much evidence point to the fact that most GB detainees were taken in because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sure, some of them probably are thugs, but the *point* of due process for everyone is to sort the guilty from the innocent. Since the Army did not follow any kind of due process they have a huge PR problem on their hand whereby they either declare everyone guilty without proper trial (since they don't have proper evidence) or they must admit they don't have much evidence and release a lot of detainee eventually.
Of course there are those who believe that it is better to indict and lock up a few innocent people (even perhaps many innocent people) in order to make sure the guilty don't escape.
In this case those very same people should have no objections when American hostages are taken in Iraq and elsewhere and executed. After all a few of them are bound to be CIA agents (i.e. "terrorists"), right?
And I'll bet YOUR bottom dollar that Apple will not rewrite Tiger just for x86. Just so you know, tiger's kernel is *not* 64-bit, and neither is the GUI. It only allows 64-bit applications to run.
Hello,
The speed of light will not change no matter what, but otherwise I agree completely with your description, we should not be able to detect a raw change in length due to gravitational waves, however we should be still able to detect a local change in gravitational field, i.e. the local metric, precisely because the change is local due to the waves.
Intuitively this might be why two interferometer arms are necessary.
Does VMWare offer 3D support for Linux under Windows or vice-versa today ?
Last I checked it didn't.
This is Apple redefining what efficient means, in typical fashion. How does Apple know my GUIs don't need to be 64-bit?
I have this medical imaging package which I'm developing. Sometimes I'm looking at datasets which don't fit in a 32-bit process (large, linked 3-d images typically). I need to sample, rotate, filter, segment and display this data in real time. I can do that under Linux/x86_64 without too much trouble.
Now under OS/X I have to split my applications into 2 processes and use IPC just to peer at the data. This is extremely inconvenient, slow and inefficient, as there is no such thing as zero-copy IPC. The best you can hope for is shared memory, and between 32-bit and 64-bit apps there are lots of limitations, so much so that I've given up porting my app to OS/X for the time being.
The truth is Apple doesn't want to go through the QA trouble of having both a 64-bit and 32-bit GUI system, something Linux and others have had for a long time.
Disappointing to say the least.
Sounds easy, doesn't it?
Now permission from whom? It depends on the contract with the publisher, on whether the author is still alive, etc. It could get difficult and at any rate a lot of work to get all these permissions.
Presumably this also means a signed document to be exchanged between Google and the copyright holders for each and every book. Remember they are set to scan hundreds of thousands of books.
In other words, a lot of aggravation.
The sad part of this is that the NeXT tools of 1991 or thereabouts are almost the same as what XCode is today.
In 1991 what NeXT had was quite revolutionary, but it is no longer.
Hello,
Just a minor nitpick, the list of top CS problems that you give is in fact a list of top *SOLVED* CS problems.
Now the top unsolved one has got to be P?=NP.
Cheers.
Google could be perfectly honest, but their content could be hacked (from within, in particular).
Maybe some authors don't feel comfortable knowing their hard work is on someone's hard disk, and could be stolen and thereafter duplicated easily.
That's correct, and the only difference with Google Print is that Amazon's system is opt-in !
I doubt it's as easy as that.
Publishers probably can't make a blanket decision like you suggest. They would have to contact each and every copyright holder (authors, estates, etc) and ask them the question. It would be easy enough for new books (just a line on the contract) but potentially a nightmare for old books.
Not quite right either,
There is the sticky point of all these web pages that are generated on the fly (or whose link is). Google can't index those either unless you help them.
More generally if you put together a page and don't "hard" link it in from a page that is regularly visited by Google's bots, then it won't get indexed. Definitely opt-in I'd say.
> Is that too hard?
Basically, yes. It's work, and someone has to do it. The publisher probably can't make a blanket decision, they would have to speak to authors directly. Contacting all these authors or their estate for their approval is not something they'd like to do on their week-ends, you see.
Publishers would much rather Google did the work.
You are quoting US law, things might be different in Australia (where the parent is writing from). Oz is not yet the 51st state. IANAL either, mind you.
I have created dozens upon dozens of web pages that are available to the public but not indexed in Google because no one can link to them (or the link is temporary and worthless). It's trivial to do. Google itself estimates they are indexing only about 20% at most of the total web content.
You don't have to submit your page to Google, that much is true, but it's still opt-in. Google cannot index the content of your databases unless you let them do it.
The parent works for a (presumably respectable) publisher and says they would opt in.
Amazon already has an opt-in similar project, and has had for years (just go to their site, and search with A9). Amazon has had no difficulty in securing publishers' content.
Here Google is going ahead with the opt-out idea because they want to do one-up on Amazon.
The authors (or at least their publisher) may feel they are being screwed over because their work is being used as the talent in a vast publicity campaign without them getting anything in return.
Sure the argument is that they *may* get increased sales, but again they may not, or it might be a pittance, whereas the stunt is likely to be worth a lot to Google. I can understand the authors (publishers) feeling that they should at least be asked nicely if they want to opt in such a scheme.
In this instance I'd still side with Google because what they are doing ultimately serves the public, but still, the IP belongs to the authors, it should be allowed a voice in what they can do with it (yes I know that they can "opt out", but if you think "opt in" is a lot of work for Google, similarly "opt out" is a lot of work for the publishers).